"Run Test with Coverage" should catch `NoSource` exceptions

[bersbersbers]

The root cause of my observations in #24307 (which still deserves its own solution IMHO) is coveragepy/coveragepy#1392. Unfortunately, configuring omit alone does not help because this code snipped does not consider it:

vscode-python/python_files/vscode_pytest/__init__.py

Lines 432 to 448 in e8dd8c0

	# load the report and build the json result to return
	import coverage
	cov = coverage.Coverage()
	cov.load()
	file_set: set[str] = cov.get_data().measured_files()
	file_coverage_map: dict[str, FileCoverageInfo] = {}
	for file in file_set:
	analysis = cov.analysis2(file)
	lines_executable = {int(line_no) for line_no in analysis[1]}
	lines_missed = {int(line_no) for line_no in analysis[3]}
	lines_covered = lines_executable - lines_missed
	file_info: FileCoverageInfo = {
	"lines_covered": list(lines_covered), # list of int
	"lines_missed": list(lines_missed), # list of int
	}
	file_coverage_map[file] = file_info

cov._check_include_omit_etc being private, the extension cannot really know what to check. So I propose replacing

vscode-python/python_files/vscode_pytest/__init__.py

Line 440 in e8dd8c0

analysis = cov.analysis2(file)

by

try:
    analysis = cov.analysis2(file)
except NoSource:
    continue

[bersbersbers]

There may be better solutions still. E.g., Coverage() takes an omit parameter that may help:

vscode-python/python_files/vscode_pytest/__init__.py

Line 435 in e8dd8c0

cov = coverage.Coverage()

Compare also #24309

[eleanorjboyd]

How are you listing omitted files? Omitting seems to be something I need to explore in general as I have gotten a few comments related to this. How does your issue compare to #24366? It seems your ask is less about the UI including or not including and more about if the run works due to files you need to skip?

[bersbersbers]

At its core, this issue is not about omitting files. Being able to omit files (either during run [which is currently possible via the coverage configuration] or report [which is not currently possible], compare #24309 (comment)) would be one workaround for this issue, but it's a different problem altogether.

In this issue, I care about error handling during the reporting phase, in case a file that existed during run is missing during report. This happens when a Python library unpacks code at runtime, only to delete these files when done. See coveragepy/coveragepy#1392 (comment) for one example. These files will then be missing during the reporting phase, leading to errors in the VS Code extension.

This can happen for other reasons, too - e.g., when processing coverage results after uninstalling a Python library. So I would argue that the extension should catch NoSource extensions under all circumstances.

[bersbersbers]

It seems your ask is less about the UI including or not including and more about if the run works due to files you need to skip?

Yes, correct.

[eleanorjboyd]

Thank you for the clarification! I will look into this now I understand the whole premise