coverage-analysis

Run a coverage analysis that computes CRAP scores per method from Cobertura XML. Methods with high cyclomatic complexity and low coverage rank highest, showing exactly which methods block coverage gains and where to add tests first.

CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) measures how risky a method is to change using the formula comp² × (1 − cov)³ + comp, where comp is cyclomatic complexity and cov is line coverage. Scores above 30 are widely considered to need immediate attention; scores of 5 or below are generally safe.

Yes. The workflow detects which coverage provider each test project references and selects a unified or per-project execution strategy. Mixed solutions using both providers are run per project to avoid dual-provider conflicts, and both produce Cobertura XML.

Yes. If you supply a path to an existing coverage.cobertura.xml file, or one is found under TestResults/, the test execution phase is skipped entirely and the analysis scripts run directly against the existing data.

The test project may lack a coverage provider, or Visual Studio's collector may have emitted binary .coverage files instead. The workflow auto-adds coverlet.collector or Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage when missing, but offline environments can cause dotnet add package to fail silently.

Avoid it for targeted single-method CRAP analysis, writing or generating tests, or general test execution unrelated to coverage. It identifies where tests are needed but does not write them, and raw dotnet test suffices when you only need a coverage number without CRAP context.