"Could not determine minimum required versions!" <= is this really true?

Describe the bug When vermin does not believe it determine minimum versions, the output is confusing and hard to interpret.

To Reproduce

$ vermin -v vermin/__init__.py vermin/printing.py
Detecting python files..
Analyzing 2 files using 4 processes..
             /c/Users/hwine/Desktop/wsl_test/vermin/vermin/__init__.py
2.0, 3.0     /c/Users/hwine/Desktop/wsl_test/vermin/vermin/printing.py
Minimum required versions: 2.0, 3.0

and

$ vermin -vvv vermin/__init__.py
Detecting python files..
Analyzing using 4 processes..
             /c/Users/hwine/Desktop/wsl_test/vermin/vermin/__init__.py
Could not determine minimum required versions!

Expected behavior I can’t discern the difference between the reports for the two files above. When I examine the files, I can not see any significant difference. I.e. why is one “2.0, 3.0” and the other “Could not determine…”.

That ambiguity makes the output harder to interpret. And harder to convince a coworker of the value. Which combines to make the tool seem less predictable. 😿

Environment (please complete the following information):

$ vermin
Vermin 0.6.2

Additional context

Here’s my use case: As a developer working on porting lots of legacy scripts and modules from py2 to py3, I want to know where to focus my effort.

With a slight change to the output, I think I’d have something I could not only explain easier to colleagues, but also drive a nice dashboard:

$ vermin -v vermin/__init__.py vermin/printing.py
Detecting python files..
Analyzing 2 files using 4 processes..
2    3       /c/Users/hwine/Desktop/wsl_test/vermin/vermin/__init__.py
2.0, 3.0     /c/Users/hwine/Desktop/wsl_test/vermin/vermin/printing.py
Minimum required versions: 2.0, 3.0

Where 2 & 3 means “vermin sees no reason this won’t work in that version”.

The value of the -vvv line/function output is tremendous in a large migration. But I need to be able to sell the outer layer as well.

I understand these are “sugar coating”, and may not fit your vision. Would there be any objection to finessing the output as above behind a --pretty flag? I could take a run at a PR for that.

[netromdk]

Thanks for the feedback, @hwine 😃

[netromdk]

I am using ~2 and ~3 already? !2 or !3 is already used if that version doesn’t support a given feature.

Hm yeah, I will change the wording somewhat. Good idea wrt. reporting: can just add the “https://github.com/netromdk/vermin/issues/” at the end of the line.