cuvner on Pull Requests
It further turns out that GitHub Actions can produce a “summary” text (although IMO it’s buried behind too many clicks to be as useful as it could be).
Here, we show you how to use “cuv” to enhance your Python-language Pull Requests(tm) with additional information – not pesky third-party coverage services required!
I personally find “git diff main | cuv diff -” to be a super useful aid in my programming: it immediately tells me what stuff in my branch remains un-tested. The alternative is to push to a branch, create a Pull Request, await Continuous Integration, hope that the selected “coverage SaaS” service works, and then hope I believe the results.
This latter has a bit of a checkered past, with various coverage services having better and worse track records on “working” and “being correct”. I don’t want this to be an airing of grievances (even if the timing is good) so I will resist the temptation to trot out examples of “SasS things being wrong”.
If you have not yet tried cuvner for in-terminal, colourized coverage visualization, I invite you to do so. In lieu I also present this screenshot of my terminal showing me real coverage data on a real pull-request I’m actually working on right now:
