fflaten
commented
2 years ago Updates to some of the comment-based help and coverage implementation details for local, Visual Studio, VSCode, and Azure Devops integration would be beneficial.
I think this type of guides belong on the website once it's updated to v5. Some big changes in 5.3.0 regarding CC, so docs was delayed a bit.
Tests with gutter support for code coverage in VSCode would be ideal. ... Showing a summary of what filenames were/were not covered by percentage would be useful. This might be available, have not seen it yet.
Available in 5.2.0+ 🥳
Summary of the feature request
Pester now includes the ability to summarize coverage results to the console, which is great for quick iteration.
In addition to running the code coverage, an optional summary output parameter and some updates to documentation would be useful. Perhaps revisiting the examples with some local, Azure Devops / Github pipeline implementation details and prescriptive guidance on editor / shell configuration?
How should it work? (optional)
Currently viewing the summary appears to require setting Coverage output configuration to detailed, which may not be as intuitive as being able to provide multiple outputs (Console, Jacoco, Nunit) or a specific parameter just to show the coverage summary.
Updates to some of the comment-based help and coverage implementation details for local, Visual Studio, VSCode, and Azure Devops integration would be beneficial. Tests with gutter support for code coverage in VSCode would be ideal.
Showing a summary of what filenames were/were not covered by percentage would be useful. This might be available, have not seen it yet.