[tahoe-lafs-trac-stream] [Tahoe-LAFS] #2297: improve precision of coverage reports by including coverage by subprocesses

[Tahoe-LAFS]

#2297: improve precision of coverage reports by including coverage by subprocesses
------------------------+---------------------------------
     Reporter:  daira   |      Owner:
         Type:  defect  |     Status:  new
     Priority:  normal  |  Milestone:  undecided
    Component:  code    |    Version:  1.10.0
   Resolution:          |   Keywords:  coverage subprocess
Launchpad Bug:          |
------------------------+---------------------------------

Comment (by warner):

 Or, let's abolish subprocesses! I think we can get rid of most of our uses
 of `subprocess.call()`. The hardest one to get rid of would be code that
 tests routines that do a fork-but-not-exec (e.g. `tahoe run`). In Petmail
 I was mostly able to implement that with threads instead. Not sure if I
 achieve coverage of the code on the far side of the fork, but I'll look.

--
Ticket URL: <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2297#comment:2>
Tahoe-LAFS <https://Tahoe-LAFS.org>
secure decentralized storage