Hi @vicsonvictor,
Thanks for your interest. We’ve created a portal card where the other users who share similar concerns can tell more about their needs. You can find it here.
The topic is a candidate for the roadmap. If we move forward with this, we will update the card. And if you left your email, you will receive a notification.
Chris
Has there been any progress or update since then? How can we help to speed up the process? I saw that a card was made on another site, but I haven’t seen any other progress, so I’m interested.
Is there any update on this?
Hi @sarkiroka & @Gyorgy_VARGA,
Please be sure to vote on the portal card Chris linked above. That’s where Product Managers are tracking “traction”. It’s votes there that will (maybe, hopefully, eventually) get the feature implemented.
Ann
Thanks, but we already voted there. 
Tell your friends? 
Adding my agreement too that we need this way of failing quality gate if coverage decreases that existing.
Atleast showing that information on the PR decoration would be so useful even if you do not have a quality gate on it.
Maybe implementing this messaging on PR decoration would be useful as an iteration from your side??
Please please add this capability!! Just show us the message on PR decoration. That’s all.
I also would like to see overall code conditions enforced for PRs from SonarQube, including PR decorations. A developer could delete all unit tests except those supporting his diff and Sonar’s quality gate would still pass their PR, which is quite problematic for automated PR quality enforcement.
Other sonar competitors like qlty.sh allow us to enforce “overall coverage” on PRs easily to ensure individual PRs do not decrease overall coverage even when the minimum diff coverage is met:
The linked issue for ratcheting conditions is ~60 votes which is even more than some of the issues listed in the “Coming Up” section. Is there something else holding the PMs from prioritizing this?
