Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19681245351

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 33 unchanged lines in 3 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 69.164%

Totals
Change from base Build 19679625723:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	9476
Relevant Lines:	13189

💛 - Coveralls

This PR adds support for comma-separated workspace values in repository configuration, allowing repositories to be cloned into multiple workspaces during project setup.

Can you give a rationale for your use-case?
Wouldn't I clone different branches into different workspaces?
Otherwise I get the exact same cloned copy multiple times.
Why would I want to have this?

In my project there have been multiple test frameworks implemented. One for BDD, one for Performance tetss, and so on. All of them share some libraries, which could also end up in the need to be adapted. Work is distributed such that the team is responsible for all of the frameworks and need to switch easily and fast development context. If now changes need to be done in dependent libraries, I always need to stash multiple repositories or commit to working branches before switching for a quickfix on jenkins or similar.
Thus, I am setting up multiple workspaces for each context with a (yes) potentially duplicated clone of dependent libraries to be fast and allow also multiple IDEs with multiple AI instances to work.

Same holds for a cross-cutting documentation to be especially reused for Copilot execution, which needs to be present in all workspaces to properly refer to the docs and let Copilot draw the right conclusions and steps.

At the moment I am using the described workaround, but it's simply nasty, so I wanted to propose this improvements as said simply for convenience.

If we want to support this feature, is redundant git cloning really the answer?
How about copying or linking the already cloned project to additional workspaces?
Maybe even git worktrees would make much more sense here?

The latter (worktrees) is also a great git-feature that many developers could benefit from but are not even aware it exists. Maybe we can also help to "spread the word" this way.

Agree. There are lot of such solutions.
Nonetheless, I am focusing on KISS. This supports me in very big teams and also with AI. The easier to work with, the easier it is to guide people and AI. Thus, a hard copy is currently the most valuable.
As said, the feature is not deciding about good and bad. It's basically convenience. I have set it up with the workaround mentioned.

I've created a new issue for this feature #1596, please adjust the changelog.