Bump code coverage

[RussKie]

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[dotnet-comment-bot]

🎉 Good job! The coverage increased 🎉
Update MinCodeCoverage in the project files.

Project	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	84	86

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=880413&view=codecoverage-tab

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	Line	86	77.7 🔻

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=880475&view=codecoverage-tab

[RussKie]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	Line	86	77.94 🔻

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=880521&view=codecoverage-tab

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	Line	86	84.76 🔻

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=882108&view=codecoverage-tab

[dotnet-comment-bot]

🎉 Good job! The coverage increased 🎉
Update MinCodeCoverage in the project files.

Project	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAI	72	77

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=892985&view=codecoverage-tab

[danmoseley]

Sorry @RussKie thought this was an old PR but you're working on it right now.

Q: if this "code coverage threshold" system seems to be working well in dotnet/extensions, is it something interesting to start experimenting with in dotnet/runtime, in the libraries? to my knowledge, they only have the ability to gather coverage, not hold thresholds. We all know the reservations and limitations of code coverage and code coverage thresholds, but I'm wondering whether the experiences in this repo might suggest it's valuable for at least some of those libraries. @joperezr @ericstj @stephentoub

[stephentoub]

if this "code coverage threshold" system seems to be working well in dotnet/extensions, is it something interesting to start experimenting with in dotnet/runtime, in the libraries?

Honestly I'm finding this system to be quite annoying.

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	Line	86	77.82 🔻

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=893124&view=codecoverage-tab

[eiriktsarpalis]

if this "code coverage threshold" system seems to be working well in dotnet/extensions, is it something interesting to start experimenting with in dotnet/runtime, in the libraries?

Honestly I'm finding this system to be quite annoying.

Agreed. I find the code coverage reports to be useful, but blocking PRs on an arbitrary threshold feels counterproductive.

[SteveSandersonMS]

Agreed. I find the code coverage reports to be useful, but blocking PRs on an arbitrary threshold feels counterproductive.

Also agreed.

In some rare cases it might be helpful to catch cases where code coverage dropped unexpectedly, but my sense is that most of the time it would go down only for good and valid reasons.

If the bot simply posted the coverage delta as a comment, that would be enough to help us to notice if anything weird is going on, and perhaps would make it easier for reviewers to ask for an explanation or changes if new code seriously lacks coverage.

It's not fun to have to make edits to the coverage thresholds in csproj files when you know it's just bureaucracy and doesn't reflect anything to do with the product's actual quality.

[RussKie]

Bump, still waiting for an approval.