feat: consider separate `coverage` command

[jolexxa]

Description

Consider creating a new command, very_good coverage, which runs tests and generates code coverage. I think there is a significant difference in motive when running tests vs generating test coverage. Tests are run to see if code is correct, while generating coverage must run tests as a means to an end to see what code is actually executed. As far as very_good coverage should be concerned, running tests is just a necessary step of generating coverage — nothing more.

As such, any new very_good coverage command would need to support the same test configuration flags that very_good test supports, along with any coverage-specific flags. This will prevent weird situations where --min-coverage is passed to very_good test without the --coverage flag (or needing to imply it).

Thoughts on this proposal?

[orestesgaolin]

What would be the coverage specific commands that could be passed to coverage but not to test?

[jolexxa]

@orestesgaolin --min-coverage, for one, since very_good test wouldn't be concerned with coverage in this proposal. If/when other coverage specific flags are added for manipulating the coverage, those would be specific to very_good coverage.

[tomarra]

With this being open for over a year with no activity on it, closing it as "won't fix" as this is not currently in our priority list.