-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Description
In #179 and #187, there was confusion about the current pragma syntax, and that pragma: some actually means pragma: no cover if some.
Whilst the situation can be improved by README changes (covered by #187), I wonder whether adjusting the supported syntax might help make the rules self-documenting, and reduce the chance for confusion?
For example, what about this syntax?
# pragma: no cover py-gte-311
ie: coverage-conditional-plugin would strip the literal string prefix no cover (if found), leaving the rule name of py-gte-311, and then behave as it does currently.
This syntax has the advantage of being clearer, and also has a nice parity with the existing no cover syntax.
For backwards compatibility (and to support a more concise syntax for people who prefer it), coverage-conditional-plugin could still support the current syntax alongside the above new syntax.