dotCover 2.0 is Released

JetBrains developers and QA engineers are finally going to have some sleep since dotCover 2.0 RTM is available right now for you to download.

Here’s the list of features that make this a worthy upgrade:

  • Support for Visual Studio 2012 RC along with Visual Studio 2005, 2008, and 2010. As soon as Visual Studio 2012 RTM comes out, we’re going to release a minor update to support it.
  • Integrated unit test runner. You don’t have to have ReSharper installed to execute unit test coverage analysis anymore: dotCover 2.0 bundles the same unit test runner that ReSharper provides. However if you do have ReSharper installed, dotCover will use ReSharper’s implementation of the unit test runner by default. Similar to its older brother, dotCover’s unit test runner supports NUnit and MSTest by default. For xUnit and MSpec, there are up-to-date plug-ins available right from the start at dotCover download page.
  • dotCover 2.0 adds attribute filters and a redesigned filter management UI. Attribute filters are there to help you exclude entities marked with certain attributes (for example, ObsoleteAttribute or TestFixtureAttribute) from coverage analysis.
  • Locate in coverage tree: a new shortcut to navigate from the caret position in Visual Studio text editor to its matching node in the coverage tree.

For a bit more detail on the new features, please read What’s New in dotCover 2.0, and be quick to download the new release!

Note that if your dotCover maintenance period or upgrade subscription is still valid, this would be a free upgrade for you!

Comments below can no longer be edited.

11 Responses to dotCover 2.0 is Released

  1. Avatar

    Roman says:

    June 18, 2012

    What I don’t get is how come dotCover doesn’t handle ternary operations properly. I even reported this issue and it was scheduled for the next release. Wake up! This is a show stopper. It’s as if dotCover reported both “if” branches as executed when in reality only one was.

  2. Avatar

    Roman says:

    June 18, 2012


  3. Avatar

    Jura Gorohovsky says:

    June 19, 2012

    Yes this is a known issue but it requires implementing branch coverage in addition to statement coverage that dotCover provides right now.
    This will be implemented at some point but I don’t think we’ve ever scheduled it for 2.0.
    As a workaround, if you’re using ReSharper, you might want to use its structural search and replace functionality to convert ternary operators as described here

  4. Avatar

    Roman says:

    June 23, 2012


    I’m fine with the absence of branch coverage. I’m not fine with dotCover assuring me that both branches are covered when it is not true.

    While solving the problem, the proposed workaround also makes the code less elegant and more verbose. And of course, nobody in their right mind will do such conversion from ternary to if-else on the entire code base.

    Anyhow, what’s the ETA on doing something about it? Either implementing branch coverage, or modifying dotCover’s highlighter to skip ternary operators.


  5. Avatar

    ruslan.isakiev says:

    July 2, 2012

    Hi Roman!
    Thank you for the interest to the product!
    According to current plans, branch coverage should be available in the Q1-Q2 2013.


  6. Avatar

    Andy says:

    November 25, 2013

    Hi Jura,

    Is there a revised ETA for branch coverage in dotCover?



  7. Avatar

    Jura Gorohovsky says:

    November 25, 2013

    Hi Andy,

    Based on dotCover PM’s estimate, looks like we’re targeting Q3 2014.

  8. Avatar

    Patric says:

    March 6, 2014

    Has this issue of ternary operator code coverage been resolved?



    • Avatar

      Jura Gorohovsky says:

      March 6, 2014

      Hi Patric,

      Unfortunately branch coverage (which is expected to fix the problem) is still in the backlog. Can’t give you a fresh estimate right now.

  9. Avatar

    Ricardo Bicho says:

    July 1, 2016

    4 years and counting…

  10. Avatar

    Arno Moonen says:

    May 17, 2017

    The issue has been created 7 years ago, but its still not implemented!?

Discover more