Suggestion for expected_coverage feature

[dkubb]

This is along the same lines as the minimum_coverage feature that @infertux added.

What I would like is a way to specify the exact expected coverage for the system. If coverage decreases it should fail the build, but if coverage increases it should also fail. When the system coverage changes I want to be notified so I can either add specs (when it drops) or adjust the threshold upwards (when it goes up).

I've used this approach with other metrics (exact matches to a threshold) and it results in small incremental improvements over time, provided you don't let things get worse.

[colszowka]

@dkubb Sorry for the slow response, I somehow overlooked this one. Yes, this certainly could be added. Do you have some time to make a PR for this functionality? Implementation should be pretty straight forward with the result change tracking already in place for the other threshold-based checks.

[PragTob]

It's funny to come upon this in the future. This was pretty much discussed in #699 and my stance is more "what would be better is a 'refuse_coverage_drop' that works" but not if it's 2 people wanting "exact_coverage" and it's arguably easier to do I might be swayed 😁

@dkubb if you're still around after all these years, what's your opinion on the matter?