I do not fully understand the idea. Why do we need both html and xml? And why do we generate html by default. Why cannot we just use stdout? With a simple --cov=chispa it will print a nice and readable message with summary about coverage.
I would like to see the stdout message on a make test and html/xml reports should be generated by test-coverage or something like this.
Also, for example, I do not have an open command (xdg-open should be used instead). What do you think about removing open and generate only reports?
@SemyonSinchenko Sorry, I could have elaborated a bit more in the PR description. The idea is to have:
A html report for local development; this allows you to easily see which lines from which file are covered or not covered. A lot more user friendly than xml
An xml report to add automated test coverage checking on PR's in a later stage, with codecov or a similar tool.
Hope this clarifies! I modified the commands and removed the open command for the HTML report.
@SemyonSinchenko Sorry, I could have elaborated a bit more in the PR description. The idea is to have:
Hope this clarifies! I modified the commands and removed the
opencommand for the HTML report.