[davidnmbond]

What

Adds a coverage job to ci.yml that runs the tests with code coverage and uploads the Cobertura report to Codacy. It runs on pdl-public because the repository is public.

• Runs the xunit v3 Microsoft.Testing.Platform test executable with --coverage (Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage), using a coverage.config modelled on PanoramicData.NugetManagement.
• Uploads with codacy/codacy-coverage-reporter-action@v1 using the CODACY_PROJECT_TOKEN secret. The upload has continue-on-error: true, and the report is also kept as a 7-day artifact.

The test project gains UseMicrosoftTestingPlatformRunner so the test executable accepts --coverage; it already referenced Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage.

Excluded tests

Everything outside the TeamViewer.Api.Test.UnitTests namespace. The only other tests are in the IntegrationTests namespace (91 tests), and they call the live TeamViewer API with credentials from user secrets. The coverage job uses FullyQualifiedName~UnitTests, the same convention and filter that build.yml already uses. 119 unit tests run.

Coverage

Local line coverage in a clean Linux container (mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:10.0.401, no user secrets) is 69.4%.

Jira: https://jira.panoramicdata.com/browse/OPS-157454

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

🟢 Coverage ∅ diff coverage

Metric	Results
Coverage variation	Report missing for 2bbf6aa1
Diff coverage	✅ ∅ diff coverage

View coverage diff in Codacy

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (2bbf6aa)	Report Missing	Report Missing	Report Missing
Head commit (62d9e5e)	193	134	69.43%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#35)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

¹ Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[codacy-production]

Pull Request Overview

The PR introduces automated code coverage reporting but contains critical implementation flaws that will cause the CI workflow to fail. While Codacy's top-level analysis indicates the project is 'up to standards', the implementation of the coverage job features a path mismatch between report generation and the subsequent upload steps. Additionally, the publish job is not dependent on the coverage job, meaning packages could be published even if tests fail, bypassing an essential quality gate. Finally, the coverage exclusion regex in coverage.config uses Windows-style backslashes which will not function on the Linux-based runners used in this CI pipeline.

About this PR

• A fundamental path discrepancy exists in the coverage job. The test runner produces a file in the repository root, but the Codacy and artifact steps expect it in a nested build directory. This will lead to 'file not found' errors.
• The CI workflow allows for a quality gate bypass: the publish job currently executes regardless of the outcome of the coverage job. This could lead to the publication of NuGet packages from builds with failing tests.

Test suggestions

• Unit test execution with coverage collection enabled via Microsoft.Testing.Platform
• Application of module and attribute exclusions specified in coverage.config
• Upload of Cobertura reports to the Codacy service
• Persistence of the coverage report as a CI build artifact

_{TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback}

[codacy-production]

_{🔴 HIGH RISK}

Update the publish job dependencies to include the coverage job to ensure that packages are only published if all unit tests pass.

Suggested change

	needs: build
	needs: [build, coverage]

[codacy-production]

_{🔴 HIGH RISK}

The coverage output filename specified here ('coverage.cobertura.xml') will cause the file to be created in the repository root. However, the subsequent Codacy upload (line 95) and artifact upload (line 103) steps look for the file at 'TeamViewer.Api.Test/bin/Debug/net10.0/TestResults/coverage.cobertura.xml'. Specify the full target path in the test command to resolve this.

Suggested change

	--coverage-output coverage.cobertura.xml
	--coverage-output TeamViewer.Api.Test/bin/Debug/net10.0/TestResults/coverage.cobertura.xml

[codacy-production]

_{🟡 MEDIUM RISK}

The exclusion regex for the 'obj' folder uses backslashes, which will not match paths on the Linux runner used in this CI workflow. Update the separators to forward slashes to ensure generated code in the 'obj' directory is correctly excluded from the coverage metrics.

Suggested change

	<Source>.*\\obj\\.*</Source>
	<Source>.*/obj/.*</Source>