-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix compatibility issue with VS Code coverage and assembly rewriting #345
Comments
@pdeligia |
Hi @jhwj9617, sadly no update that I am aware of from the VS tooling side. I keep this issue open here and I totally understand your pain and would love this resolved ASAP, but as we discussed before I don't consider this as a coyote bug that I am able to fix from my side, since it should really be the code coverage tool that handles combining rewritten + non-rewritten DLL stats when CI mixes tests that use both DLLs, and not something that coyote itself can actually deal with on its own (the ideal setup for coyote is to run it separately as you are doing now, but I know it can be a pain when you want to run a single configuration with all types of tests). Have you checked recently with the folks that you introduced me back then? We could get on another call/chat with them if that helps speed up things (and I am happy to join the discussion)? |
@jhwj9617, regarding performance hit from building twice -- I was thinking more about this, but I am a bit confused why that is necessary. Maybe I am missing something here, but couldn't you build once and copy the bin directory and rewrite the copy? Also |
It seems that the code coverage tool is misreading the rewritten binaries as uncovered code blocks, causing % coverage to be reduced. The issue arises when you run code coverage on multiple projects that use the same project references. Since they maintain their own separate copies of assemblies in the build directories, one of them is rewritten, and the other one is not, resulting in duplicate assemblies in code coverage.
+@jhwj9617
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: