Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 15.78947% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.18%. Comparing base (fea80f0) to head (ed95d50).
Report is 19 commits behind head on dev/v4.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           dev/v4    #5856      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.21%   63.18%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         584      584              
  Lines       31808    31808              
==========================================
- Hits        20107    20097      -10     
- Misses      11701    11711      +10     

Do you want to also simplify logic from

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what to simplify there as this is more of a global setting unrelated to the attributes.

Do you want to also simplify logic from

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what to simplify there as this is more of a global setting unrelated to the attributes.

True, if we don't care much about perf, we could force STATEstMethod on all test methods in such context. This is obviously less performant than having a single STA move.

Do you want to also simplify logic from

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what to simplify there as this is more of a global setting unrelated to the attributes.

True, if we don't care much about perf, we could force STATEstMethod on all test methods in such context. This is obviously less performant than having a single STA move.

The logic in the attribute checks if we are already in STA thread, and in that case we don't create a thread and we run directly.
So, if the option is globally enabled, it doesn't matter much whether or not the attribute is used as it will almost do nothing special.

@Evangelink I changed a bit the signature of the wrapping constructor of STATestMethodAttribute