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
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
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?