Assembly marked as ExcludeFromCodeCoverage is not excluded

[SefaOray]

Description
When an assembly decorated with ExcludeFromCodeCoverage attribute, it is not excluded from coverage report.

Repro steps
Example code:

using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;
using System

[assembly: ExcludeFromCodeCoverage]
namespace ExampleNs
{
    public class ExampleClass:
    {
        public Guid Id { get; set; }
    }
}

Expected behavior
Assembly is excluded from the coverage report

Actual behavior
Assembly is included in the coverage report

Known workarounds
Passing the assembly with --exclude "[Assembly]*" works

Related information
Cross platform .NET Core code coverage tool version 1.3.0.0
Visual Studio Version: Visual Studio Professional 2017
Microsoft (R) Test Execution Command Line Tool Version 15.9.0
Test project build with .Net Core 2.1

[tonerdo]

@SefaOray exclusion attributes don't work on assemblies by design. The --exclude property is provided for achieving the same.

[sshukurov]

@tonerdo could you please clarify? I have the same issue here, and ExcludeFromCodeCoverage must work on assemblies https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.diagnostics.codeanalysis.excludefromcodecoverageattribute.

[tonerdo]

exclusion attributes don't work on assemblies by design

@sshukurov by this I mean that Coverlet doesn't check for attributes on assemblies. It does however, have an exclude option that supports specifying assemblies

[sshukurov]

@tonerdo it's a pity. I want to define all my exclusions in code, so that different code coverage tools can reuse them.

[zmhh]

Agree that ExcludeFromCodeCoverage should work for assemblies unless there is a reason not to.

[olivier-spinelli]

This should be supported. May this issue be reopened? (And eventually handled... this should not be too complicated to implement.)

[bhales42]

This would be useful. I usually execute unit tests and coverage multiple ways: IDE, command line, etc. Declaring this in an assembly attribute would apply to all methods.

[MarcoRossignoli]

@tonerdo I re-opened this issue, I think we should support this behaviour because it's a default for most coverage tools.
If you don't agree please let me know.
@petli what do you think?