From 0bc74d31222f80291aeb706230b48277372f5d91 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ned Batchelder Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:42:19 -0500 Subject: Formatting of changes --- doc/changes.rst | 21 +++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) (limited to 'doc/changes.rst') diff --git a/doc/changes.rst b/doc/changes.rst index 46459b13..9290820b 100644 --- a/doc/changes.rst +++ b/doc/changes.rst @@ -49,24 +49,29 @@ history, see the `CHANGES.rst`_ file in the source tree. .. _changes_41: +Unreleased +---------- + + + Version 4.1b2 pre-release --- 2016-01-23 ---------------------------------------- - Branch analysis has been rewritten: it used to be based on bytecode, but now uses AST analysis. This has changed a number of things: - - More code paths are now considered runnable, especially in ``try``/``except`` - structures. This may mean that coverage.py will identify more code paths - as uncovered. This could either raise or lower your overall coverage - number. + - More code paths are now considered runnable, especially in + ``try``/``except`` structures. This may mean that coverage.py will + identify more code paths as uncovered. This could either raise or lower + your overall coverage number. - - Python 3.5's ``async`` and ``await`` keywords are properly supported, fixing - `issue 434`_. + - Python 3.5's ``async`` and ``await`` keywords are properly supported, + fixing `issue 434`_. - Some long-standing branch coverage bugs were fixed: - - `issue 129`_: functions with only a docstring for a body would incorrectly - report a missing branch on the ``def`` line. + - `issue 129`_: functions with only a docstring for a body would + incorrectly report a missing branch on the ``def`` line. - `issue 212`_: code in an ``except`` block could be incorrectly marked as a missing branch. -- cgit v1.2.1