Is this working already? All the pragmas are actually being used?

Is this working already? All the pragmas are actually being used?

not sure, will test

@Kludex Found two issues that prevented strict-no-cover from actually detecting anything:

1. coverage >= 7.13 breaks strict-no-cover

Coverage 7.13.0 changed analysis_from_file_reporter to filter executed lines with & statements. Since statements excludes lines matching exclude_lines patterns, executed_lines in the JSON report can never contain excluded lines. strict-no-cover checks excluded_lines ∩ executed_lines, so the intersection is always empty — the tool silently passes regardless of unnecessary pragmas.

Fix: pin coverage[toml]>=7.10.7,<7.13.

2. relative_files = true breaks strict-no-cover

strict-no-cover creates a temp rcfile containing only [tool.coverage.report] and passes it via --rcfile=<temp> to coverage json. This overrides the entire project config, including [tool.coverage.run] settings like relative_files = true. Without that setting, coverage cannot match the relative paths stored in .coverage to the source files, resulting in empty executed_lines for all files.

Fix: remove relative_files = true from [tool.coverage.run].

I also added a test # pragma: no cover on a covered line (src/mcp/shared/exceptions.py:18) to verify the CI step actually fails. Once confirmed, that pragma should be removed.

_{AI Disclaimer}