NCrunch allows you to add files and directory to include in the workspace using file globbing patterns. This is a great feature. However, this feature could be improved to also allow you to specify "negative inclusions", which would greatly benefit large solutions.

My solution has 107 projects in it and one of the projects is a test project that runs some "solution-wide" tests using Roslyn Compiler Services. So this test project requires that the entire solution be in the workspace. However, what I don't need are all the *\{bin,obj}\*.* files, just the *.cs and *.csproj files.

Currently, it's really difficult for large solutions to select a wide swatch of files, while also excluding only a few of the files that may fall under similar paths. It would be great to be able to specify, for example:

..\CommonProjectPrefix.*\**.*
!..\CommonProjectPrefix.*\**\*.{exe,dll}

Note another construct, also currently not supported: the braces which contain strings which would each be applied to the token before it (*. in this case).

This can greatly reduce the amount of disk space consumed by NCrunch when creating workspaces for test projects. (Currently, I'm out of disk space because I cannot finely tune without great and time-consuming effort the files that are copied into a workspace.)

Let's say I need to support 2 db providers (e.g. SqlServer and Sqlite) and I write the same (1) test for both but in the configuration file for the test project I define which db provider it should connect to.

Currently the work process is something like:
1) Run all tests with SqlServer provider setting set
2) Change configuration file to use Sqlite provider.
3) Re-run all tests to tests towards Sqlite provider.

What I would like to have is something like:
1) In a setting for a test project, define x number of "environment configurations" where I guess the simplest would be to define env.variable for the 2 different configurations (e.g. DbProvider="SqlServer", and DbProvider="Sqlite") in a list.
2) When Ncrunch executes a test, it executes it with all set configurations (similar to test cases with NUnit), and outputs the result where I can see both difference in execution time and test outcome.

I would like a solution setting so clicking "Click here to hide this warning" ends up in my .ncrunchproject.user instead of team shared .ncrunchproject file.

Background:
I have a lot of warnings in projects I am hiding, after validating they are valid to ignore. If I am not experienced with NCrunch I probably do not know what they mean, hide it and commit changes to .ncrunchproject files.
The warnings also include grid nodes warnings, which might only be specific for my machine (if we e.g. do not share grid nodes for the team settings) and really makes no sense to commit in team shared files.

Thus, it would be nice if "Click here to hide this warning" could hide the warning for current user only, and not change team shared file.
(If I want the warning to be disabled for entire team, I change the solution setting, hide the warning causing .ncrunchproject to be altered, and then change back solution setting).

Last Run/Build only shows current time. When you have a session open for more then 1 day it becomes difficult to tell when it was last executed (and sorting does not work properly, but I assume this is a bug).

Adding the date as suffix in column (not prefix since IMHO the mostly the date is always today, thus saving screen estate if column can be narrow so date becomes truncated when needed) would help in determine if it was run today or not.

Alternative solutions:
A) Add the date (e.g. "2018-06-27") upon moseover.
B) Add date as separate column (not that nice since I then go show/hide it in order to save occupied screen estate)

Visual Studio Live Share is a new collaborative sharing tool that is currently in development for both VS and VS Code.

We are currently evaluating it, and we noticed that annoyingly, there is currently no way to have the nice dots / coverage NCrunch provides to remote guests.

There is a task / issue logged with Live Share https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/live-share/issues/125 which they seem interested in creating an API eventually.

I think you guys should look at trying to integrate with this... as I believe Live Share looks to be on the right track at the moment... and having NCrunch integrated into Live Share at some level will be epic :D