sp_helpme - add incl col

[lowlydba]

Add included columns to the standard output from sp_helpindex.

Description

I decided to keep in place the original sp_helpindex since this is a small addition and there are some very specific ways that sp_helpindex works. With a focus on keeping the "drop in replacement" functionality I think it is better to keep the overall behavior, error reporting, etc. as original as possible/reasonable.

Unrelated:

• Remove Appveyor CI
• Enhance unit tests
• Update copyright year on all procs
• Clarify README support section
• Fix SSL issues

Issue: Fixes #264

How Has This Been Tested?

MARs are hard to test, so this was tested manually.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist:

• I have updated the Version number of any scripts modified.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly. - See lowlydba/dba-multitool.org@33e6aad
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[github-actions]

✅ TSQLLint Summary

Linted 6 files in 1.0591484 seconds

0 Errors.
0 Warnings.

📄 Full job results.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                    Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
------------------------  -------  ------  -------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
[dbo].[sp_doc]                 91       3  96.70%   93-94, 391
[dbo].[sp_estindex]           207       5  97.58%   186, 739-744
[dbo].[sp_helpme]              93       1  98.92%   337
[dbo].[sp_sizeoptimiser]      240      18  92.50%   145, 178, 226, 241, 661, 871, 926, 930, 934, 938, 1078, 1139, 1221-1226
TOTAL                         631      27  95.72%

Results for commit: 76dbe9d

Minimum allowed coverage is 90%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[lowlydba]

@mattcargile Can you check if the version in this branch fits your needs?

[mattcargile]

I assume folks like to use this procedure from master. My issue is that I have the procedure stored in master. Based on this article, it could be resolved with sp_ms_marksystemobject. I am not super keen on using this though. I'd rather see the dynamic SQL avenue used with DB_NAME().

[lowlydba]

Oof this is quickly becoming a pain. Thanks for diving in.

I agree that dynamic seems like maybe the best route to go next, I'll give that a shot and see where it gets us.

[lowlydba]

@mattcargile How's this looking now?

[mattcargile]

It is working great.

I had looked at it a couple days ago and left a review above about the sp_executesql context. I didn't realize the #sp_helpindex would exist. I think I was thinking about the new permissions context with sp_executesql instead. Additionally, I don't think I even submitted the review for you to see. I think it was only in Pending.

[lowlydba]

Great! Thanks for the feedback.

I'll try to merge and release this week.