Skip to content

docs: add section on testing Workspace Trust behavior in extensions#9784

Merged
ntrogh merged 2 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
Dotify71:docs/testing-workspace-trust-extension-host
May 28, 2026
Merged

docs: add section on testing Workspace Trust behavior in extensions#9784
ntrogh merged 2 commits into
microsoft:mainfrom
Dotify71:docs/testing-workspace-trust-extension-host

Conversation

@Dotify71
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Dotify71 Dotify71 commented May 17, 2026

Hey! I ran into issue #9583 myself while writing tests for a trust-aware extension and couldn't find any docs on this. Added a section covering how to test trusted vs untrusted workspace behavior — covers test config, assertions using isTrusted, and launch.json setup.

Closes #9583

@Dotify71
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

@Dotify71 Dotify71 force-pushed the docs/testing-workspace-trust-extension-host branch 3 times, most recently from ab4d9f9 to 82b629e Compare May 17, 2026 21:54
Adds a new section to the Testing Extensions guide explaining how
extension authors can write integration tests that cover both trusted
and untrusted workspace scenarios.

Covers:
- How Workspace Trust state works in the Extension Development Host
- Configuring separate test runs per trust state via @vscode/test-cli
- Using an isolated --user-data-dir to prevent trust from persisting
- Writing assertions using vscode.workspace.isTrusted
- Using onDidGrantWorkspaceTrust event in tests
- Configuring launch.json for trusted and untrusted test runs

Closes microsoft#9583
@ntrogh ntrogh enabled auto-merge (squash) May 28, 2026 13:19
@ntrogh ntrogh merged commit f18f0ef into microsoft:main May 28, 2026
1 of 2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Missing reference for testing extensions within the extension host (or possibly too hard to find)

3 participants