Repository navigation
Closed as not planned
Labels
area/mtpMicrosoft.Testing.Platform core library.Microsoft.Testing.Platform core library.area/server-mode-jsonrpcMTP server mode - JSON RPC transport.MTP server mode - JSON RPC transport.
Description
Initialize request
- initialize request has
debuggerProvidercapability, which the server doesn't make use of at all. This is also because the server never sendsclient/launchDebuggerandclient/attachDebuggerrequests. Should we remove those requests for now? batchLoggingSupportis documented but not implemented both in Test Explorer and server. I think this should be removed from the documentation, until it's needed and implemented.- Client capabilities documents
attachmentsSupport, but Test Explorer actually sendsattachmentsProvider(always sends it as true). The server doesn't care about either of the two. I think this can be removed altogether. - Client capabilities documents
callbackProvider, but this is not implemented both in TE and server. - On TE side,
multipleConnectionProvideris part of client capabilities. On server side, it's part of server capabilities. And is not documented in both.
Initialize response
- Both server and client has ProcessId as part of initialize response, which is not documented.
- The documented capabilities are
experimental_multiRequestSupportandattachmentsProvider.- TODO for me: Validate how experimental_multiRequestSupport is used.
- Both client and server use
attachmentsSupport, notattachmentsProvider supportsDiscovery,vstestProvider,multipleConnectionProviderare part of server capabilities on the server implementation, but not documented (well, vstestProvider is documented in an extension document, but no mentioned in the main one)
TODO: Review the rest. So far I reviewed only the initialize part.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
area/mtpMicrosoft.Testing.Platform core library.Microsoft.Testing.Platform core library.area/server-mode-jsonrpcMTP server mode - JSON RPC transport.MTP server mode - JSON RPC transport.
Activity
Evangelink commentedon May 13, 2026
Thank you for the thorough audit, Youssef Fahmy (@Youssef1313). In an ideal world we would go through each of these discrepancies and align the documentation with the implementation (or vice versa). However, given our current team capacity and investment priorities, we've decided not to actively pursue this unless concrete problems surface — for example, if a third-party consumer hits an issue due to one of these mismatches.
If any of these points does cause a real-world problem down the road, we're happy to revisit and address it on a case-by-case basis. Closing as won't fix for now.