I have a question regarding the nunit3-console. When running tests through it I am observing a generation of log files like internal-trace and nunit-agent text files.
I was able to disable the generation of the internal-trace with the --trace=off option but for each run having the test .dll specified I am noticing a nunit-agentNumber.txt file generated.
My question is, is this a problem? More specifically for CI/CD and is there an option to disable this? Or clean it at least after each run.
Version 3.15 of the engine introduced a new internal feature, allowing code to change the level of debugging dynamically. (Not yet exposed to users, but intended to be eventually)
As a side effect, it looks as if empty log files are being created. For the moment, the only way to avoid this is to go back to the previous release.
A fix was created in the development code for version 4.0, but has not been ported back to the version 3 code. A bug report might help with that. :-)
I've been using NAnt for sometime and although it works pretty well most of the time, some functionality is so limited you find yourself doing a page worth of work instead of couple of lines.
My biggest problem is returning results from exec task.. you HAVE to output to file then read the file then in my case substring what you read.
Multiply that by 8 different queries and you have lots of unnecessary work.
Anyway I would like to switch MSBuild which has much better support in this case.
But the problem is that I am using CI + Nant to deploy on staging and sometimes production and Nant is just a directory with files that you copy.
But As far as I know MSBuild must be installed and registered.
Is there such a thing as a standalone MSBuild download?
Thanks
I don't have time today to write up a rough history for MSBuild (I already covered ASP.NET on IIS and C# compilers), but I would tell you that MSBuild is not only standalone today, but open source at GitHub,
https://github.com/microsoft/msbuild
You can download the installers from Microsoft Downloads, or you can compile your own.
Reference: Rough History of MSBuild
There's plenty of information/blogs/msdn articles around on NOT using GACUtil in your Deployment/Release scenarios and that MSI or another windows installer technology is a far better option.
However is it still appropriate to use GACUtil in your Development work flow.
We have a number of DLLs that are strong named & referenced from the GAC. In order to keep the development team in sync, once a new version of the GAC-able DLL is generated it's automatically added to all other developers GAC's as part of their daily trunk checkout. Workflow goes something like:
A Developers makes a change to one of our GAC-able assemblies, tests it locally, and once signed off, compiles a release version of the DLL
Release version is copied from \Project_DIR\bin\Release*.dll -> \COMPANY_GAC\Current*.dll
Other devs run our Source Control check out batch scripts which:
Check out newest versions of COMPANY_GAC\Current*.dll
Run GacUtil.exe on each DLL
This has worked for us up until now, but it's getting a little more complex with:
- Larger Team, more stringent management of GAC Changes.
- CLR2.0 & CLR4.0 compiled Company_Gac assemblies requiring different versions of GACUtil.exe
- Managing assemblies on Build/Integration Servers which have multiple feature branches (and hence having to hot-swap different GAC Dlls)
Should we be looking at something more robust that GACUtil & Scripts to manage this?
One consideration was to roll something ourselves in powershell to check the Assembly type and add the assemblies to the correct GAC. Has anyone done this?
Any other suggestions on how developers manage their GAC workflow would be welcome.
Not using gacutil.exe during deployment is an easy one: it isn't available on the target machine since it is a Windows SDK utility and it is not a re-distributable component.
Using it during development certainly isn't popular. Most typically you'd use a solution with the dependent projects included so that you'll automatically get the latest build with local deployment and no need for the GAC. That goes well up to a point, build times can require starting distributing swords when the solution gets too massive.
No magic solutions past that point, the GAC certainly helps to get build times down again. In general, churn in the foundation assemblies should start with minus 1000 points, they can cause a lot of pain. Save them up for only, say, weekly release updates. Off hand, there's also the core need to get all this stuff properly installed on the client machines. If nobody has focused on that yet, maybe now is a good time to get that solid. Which automatically gets debugged when everybody uses it to get the assemblies they need on their machine.
I've seen similar questions and answers but found them not really what I want.
I have a large solution with several web projects in it. All the web projects share some common code so they are all part of the same solution (there is a common project that is referenced by all of them).
I've been running on Team Foundation Server 2008 and we are upgrading to TFS 2010 to be ready for our move to visual studio 2010 and .net 4.0.
I've got the build working with a 2010 build by creating a new build because we only had one customization I'm trying to reproduce.
Once the build is done I have the files dumped at
\\SERVER\tfsdump\devel2010 build\devel2010 build_20101008.3\_PublishedWebsites
by using the dump folder option but the build location is
C:\Builds\1\Web Applications\devel2010 build\Binaries\_PublishedWebsites
All I want to do is after the build is finished I want to copy _PublishedWebsites\SiteA to \ServerA\ShareA
and copy _PublishedWebsites\SiteB to \ServerB\ShareB
Because there is only one build agent all I need is to call a batch file to run the copy but for easy of use for my developers I need this batch file to be called after every build. Is this possible or is there a better solution?
To make things harder the site is still a 2008 project and it is requested that it stays that way until we can fully test it under VS 2010.
Use a CopyDirectory build activity, set Source property equal to BuildDetail.DropLocation + "\_PublishedWebsites\SiteA" and set Destination property to your desired location. I have put this activity as the last activity in build process and it works properly.
Taking a cue from Afshar's answer, for people directly editing XAML template file, create a new sequence after copy to the Drop location is successful:
DisplayName="Something" Source="[BuildDetail.DropLocation + "_PublishedWebsites\SiteA " ]" />
The quotes inside should be written as " and semicolon.
There are a ton of questions here on SO regarding NUnit vs. MSTest, and I have read quite a few of them. I think my question here is slightly different enough to post separately.
When I started to use C#, I never even considered looking at MSTest because I was so used to not having it available when I was using C++ previously. I basically forgot all about it. :) So I started with NUnit, and loved it. Tests were very easy to set up, and testing wasn't too painful -- just launch the IDE and run the tests!
As many here have pointed out, NUnit has frequent updates, while MSTest is only updated as often as the IDE. That's not necessarily a problem if you don't need to be on the bleeding edge of TDD (which I'm not), but the problem I was having with frequent updates is keeping all of the systems up-to-date. I use about four or five different PCs daily, and while updating all of them isn't a huge deal, I was hoping for a way to make my code compile properly on systems with an older version of NUnit. Since my project referenced the NUnit install folder, when I upgraded the framework, any computers with the older framework installed would no longer be able to compile my project. I tried to combat the problem by created a common folder in SVN that had just the NUnit DLLs, but even then it would somehow complain about the version number of the binary. Is there a way to get around this issue? This is what made me stop using the first time.
Then one day I remembered MSTest, and decided to give it a try. I loved that it was integrated into the IDE. CTRL-R,CTRL-A, all tests run. How simple! But then I saw that the types of tests available in MSTest were pretty limited. I didn't know how many I'd actually really need, but I figured I should go back to NUnit, and I did.
About now I was starting to have to debug unit tests, and the only way I could figure out how to do it in NUnit was to set NUnit as the startup application, then set breakpoints in my tests. Then in the NUnit GUI, I would run the tests to hit the breakpoints. This was a complete PITA. I then looked at the MSTest GUI again, and saw that I could just click Debug there and it would execute my tests! WOW! Now that was the killer feature that swayed me back in favor of MSTest.
Right now, I'm back using MSTest. Unfortunately, today I started to think about daily builds and did some searching on Tinderbox, which is the only tool I had heard of before for this sort of thing. This then opened up my eyes to other tools like buildbot and TFS. So the problem here is that I think MSTest is guaranteed to lock me into TFS for automated daily builds, or continuous integration, or whatever the buzzword is. My company can't afford to get locked into MS-only solutions (other than VS), so I want to examine other choices.
I'm perfectly fine to go back to NUnit. I'm not thrilled about rewriting 100+ unit tests, but that's the way it goes. However, I'd really love for someone to explain how to squash those two issues of mine, which in summary are:
how do I setup NUnit and my project so that I don't have to keep upgrading it on every system to make my project build?
how do I get easier debugging of unit tests? My approach was a pain because I'd have to keep switching between NUnit and the default app to test / run my application. I saw a post here on SO that mentioned NUnitIt on codeplex, but I haven't any experience with it.
UPDATE -- I'm comparing stuff in my development VM, and so far, NUnitit is quite nice. It's easy to install (one click), and I just point it to whatever NUnit binaries are in my SVN externals folder. Not bad! I also went into VS -> Tools -> Options -> Keyboard and changed my mapping for CTRL-R,CTRL-A to map to NUnitit.Connect.DebugGUI. Not perfect since I haven't figured out how to make NUnit automatically run the tests when it's opened, but it's pretty good. And debugging works as it should now!
UPDATE #2 -- I installed TestDriven.Net and gave it a quick run through. Overall, I like it a lot better than NUnitit, but at the moment, NUnitit wins because it's free, and since it also works with NUnit, it will allow me to "upgrade" to TestDriven.Net when the time comes. The thing I like most about TestDriven.Net is that when I double click on the failed test, it takes me right to the line in the test that had failed, while NUnit + NUnitit doesn't seem to be capable of this. Has anyone been able to make this link between the NUnit GUI and the VS IDE happen?
Many projects I've worked on have included a copy of the specific version of NUnit (or xUnit.net, whatever) in a "lib" or "extrernal" or "libraries" folder in their source control, and reference that location for building all of their tests. This greatly reduces the "upgrade everyone" headache, since you really don't need to install NUnit or xUnit.net to use it.
This approach will still let you use something like TestDriven.Net to execute the tests, run the tests in a debugger, etc.
For easier debugging (and running, too) of unit tests I recommend checking out TestDriven.Net. The "Test With > Debugger" feature is so handy. The personal version is free.
Have you played with the "Specific Version" property on the NUnit.framework reference? We keep ours set to true so that the tests that are coded for a given nunit version require that specific version to execute.
I'm not sure how it will handle, for example, if you had 2.5 on your machine but another machine only had 2.4 - would .NET bind to the 2.4 version happily or will it only bind from earlier versions to later versions of an assembly (e.g. compiled against 2.4, but 2.5 availale at runtime?)