Issue #13667 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Sorry for the late reply. I'm positive for this proposal. There is the same request #13838, which reminds me of this ticket. That issue proposes `Coverage.enabled?`. I'm unsure, but `running?` seems a bit better to me because the starting API is not `Coverage.enabled = true` but `Coverage.start`. Any opinions? If there is no strong objection, I will choose `running?`. ---------------------------------------- Feature #13667: Add Coverage.running? to quickly check if Coverage is enabled. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13667#change-66272 * Author: burke (Burke Libbey) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Target version: ---------------------------------------- Since we can't `RubyVM::InstructionSequence#to_binary` when `Coverage` is running, it is useful to be able to ask ruby if coverage is active. This is possible with `Coverage.peek_result`, but not efficient, since it involves quite a bit of data copying. I've used the private symbol `rb_get_coverages` in [bootsnap](https://github.com/Shopify/bootsnap/pull/63) for now but this feels worth exposing publicly. ``` > Benchmark.realtime { 100.times{ Coverage.peek_result } } => 1.3659249999909662 > Benchmark.realtime { 100.times{ Bootsnap::CompileCache::Native.coverage_running? } } => 5.099998088553548e-05 ``` Example usage: ``` class RubyVM::InstructionSequence def load_iseq(path) return nil if defined?(Coverage) && Coverage.running? # ... end end ``` ---Files-------------------------------- 0001-Add-Coverage.enabled-to-quickly-check-if-coverage-is.patch (1.97 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>