Do we really need to cover coverage with Vulture?

August 18, 2018

The team behind Vulture (a tool used for detecting unused Python code) decided not to integrate it with coverage (a tool for measuring code coverage of Python programs). Read why!

coverage - wow, so accurate - we need it…?

When this phase kicked in, I was still wrapping my head around coverage - My plan was to get coverage integrated with Vulture, which would allow users to “transfer” the results from coverage to Vulture so that the false positives were automatically detected and thereby supressed. It sounded so neat and moreso doable (using an interminnent xml file) and so naturally, I just quickly got down to nuts and bolts and started a Pull Request. But, alongst those splendid colors of awesome functionality, Jendrik comes in and talks a bunch on why we shouldn’t do it. I could extrapolate the following reasons:

But, still it struck me as a little odd at that time because I thought that the functionality was optional and if someone didn’t want it, he would simply just not use it - simple. By now, may be you’ve judged that that this was the “feature syndrome” talking (The more features we have, the more usable we are) and yes, you’re right. Luckily, Jendrik foresaw this early and redirected me towards this blog post which explains why it’s actually toxic for anything to have more “options” and how it was an expensive process in terms of time spent on writing, documenting and maintaining it.

I’m very thankful of Jendrik and proud of the fact that we’ve still managed to keep the workflow involved when using Vulture as simple as it could get. :-)

Do we really need to cover coverage with Vulture? - August 18, 2018 - Rahul Jha