Add option to specify multiple threshold values for each threshold types

[arun-subramanian-1]

• For single threshold value behavior will be same as present, i.e same
  threshold values is used to check against specified threshold types.
  Otherwise parse the value in the same order as the threshold type.

Usage
(1). /p:Threshold="80,100,70" /p:ThresholdType="line,branch,method"
(2). /p:Threshold=90 /p:ThresholdType="line,branch,method"
(3). /p:Threshold="80,90" /p:ThresholdType="branch,method"

closes #379

[arun-subramanian-1]

#379

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #385 into master will increase coverage by 4.36%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #385      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   87.13%   91.5%   +4.36%     
=========================================
  Files          16      16              
  Lines        2106    2106              
=========================================
+ Hits         1835    1927      +92     
+ Misses        271     179      -92

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #385 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #385   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.96%   91.96%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        2229     2229           
=======================================
  Hits         2050     2050           
  Misses        179      179

[MarcoRossignoli]

LGTM if @tonerdo approve we should update guide.

[tonerdo]

@thetoxicsoul what happens if I specify:
(1). /p:Threshold="80,100,70" /p:ThresholdType="line,branch"
(2). /p:Threshold="80,90" /p:ThresholdType="line,branch,method"

[arun-subramanian-1]

@tonerdo It will throw a build error like

(1)
error : Threshold type flag count (2) and values count (3) doesnt match

(2)
error : Threshold type flag count (3) and values count (2) doesnt match

[tonerdo]

I'm concerned that this addition adds some flexibility at the expense of increasing complexity of usage of this relatively simple option

[arun-subramanian-1]

For our crossplatform .net project we would need this requirement (other windows C++ project we use similar threshold metric).
The only other option would be to use the lowest threshold value for all coverage metric.
This doesnt affect the existing behavior though when user passes the single threshold value.

[MarcoRossignoli]

other windows C++ project we use similar threshold metric

@arun-subramanian-1 can you provide names of other coverage frameworks with this metrics checks support?

[MarcoRossignoli]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[MarcoRossignoli]

@tonerdo what do you think about this PR?
Should we close and wait for more users request?

[tonerdo]

@MarcoRossignoli I go with the second one. Let's put it on hold till we have more requests

[MarcoRossignoli]

thank's @arun-subramanian-1 for the effort here...we'll re-open/merge in future if we'll have more feature requests!

[vraravam]

I like this feature - could you please re-open and merge the PR?

[MarcoRossignoli]

@vraravam this PR needs some updated and also we should update the documentation accordingly.

[MadisonEhlers-Vertex]

Hey all,

This feature would be useful to me as well. Would be great if this feature could be added. Thanks!

[MarcoRossignoli]

@arun-subramanian-1 I see some interest for this feature, would you like to rebase and move to the end?
If the default behavior is the the same I think we can merge.
Also you should update the guide.

Ah not obligate at all!If you're busy let me know I'll clone your branch and implement the missing part.

[pbmiguel]

@MarcoRossignoli, can I continue this MR - rebase, resolve conflicts?
(this feature would be very helpful to me and my colleagues in my work)

[FranciscoSousaDeveloper]

Hey all,

This feature would be useful to me as well. Would be great if this feature could be added. Thanks!

[MarcoRossignoli]

@MarcoRossignoli, can I continue this MR - rebase, resolve conflicts?

@pbmiguel sorry I missed your message, yep you can go on with rebase.

[pbmiguel]

on it

[pbmiguel]

we had to open a new MR since we can't update the branch of @arun-subramanian-1
#1123