NDepend User Voice
Welcome to the NDepend User Voice page. Let us know what you would like to see in future versions of NDepend. This site is for suggestions and ideas. If you need to report a bug, please send us an email at email@example.com
We look forward to hearing from you!
Thanks – Patrick Smacchia
3 results found
Consider XAML during analysis
Converters are seen as "Dead Code", but most of time, they are used as static resources into XAML. Is there a way to compute it ? Most generally, is it possible with static analysis to make some déductions including XAML code ?28 votes
Support a generic coverage input format (with documentation)
While supporting various code coverage output formats is helpful and is ideal from an ease-of-use standpoint, there will always be that one more coverage tool.
If instead you provide a documented xml(json, whatever) format, then one can transform the output of a coverage tool to that format without waiting for support for the format to be added to NDepend, or the coverage tool can even directly support an NDepend output option.3 votes
Add support for Dotcover excluded code
NDepend currently doesn't support code excluded from Dotcover test coverage analyses,resulting in discrepant results when Dotcover coverage filters are added. I propose adding support so that NDepend reports the same test coverage as Dotcover when content has been selected for exclusion.12 votes
- Don't see your idea?