Is it possible to achieve the same (or close to the same) functionality as a MbUnit TestSuiteFixture using NUnit? I need to generate sets of dynamic test cases and MbUnit's TestSuiteFixture is the only thing I have found so far that comes close to solving this need.
Related
I'm working with multiple features and scenarios and am looking for a way to find out what scopes are included in a test run at the time to test run start, if that's possible.
There's a large-ish subset (category) of our tests that require a setup that takes 5-10 seconds--currently we're using a BeforeFeature to optimize this setup as much as we can but we have several features (but not all) under the same scope. We'd like to run this setup only when that category of tests of tests is included in the test run.
in pseudo code it would essentially be
[BeforeTestRun]
If test run includes scenarios/features with tag "AdvancedSetup"
AdvancedSetup();
In SpecFlow this information is not available.
But perhaps your test runner has this information available.
FYI: Tags are translated to TestCategories.
NUnit allows use of a higher-level setup that applies to a namespace. You access this by creating a SetUpFixture. If SpecFlow gives you a way to map features into specific namespaces, you could use this.
Can I force each nunit test method to run on a separate process ?
I need to do this because calling some of the methods-under-test may have side-effects. So, I need to make sure that each unit test run in complete isolation from the other unit tests.
You can make use of the "/process" option to specify - single or separate or multiple options. Here is the reference to the NUnit documentation for version 2.5: http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=consoleCommandLine&r=2.5. Look at the Controlling the Use of Processes section.
I've got a Perl-based test suite with 10,000+ tests that I would like to make run faster. I've tested using the -j flag to prove, and I have found that most-but-not-all of my tests are ready to run in parallel.
While I can work on making the remaining tests to be "parallel friendly", I expect there always be some tests which are not. What's a good way to manage this? I would like for it to be easy to run the whole set of tests efficiently, and make it easy to mark tests as "not-parallel-ready" if I need to.
Here are some options I see:
prove could be patched to support some tests as not-parallel-ready
Jenkins is being used to manage the test suite runs. I could split off the non-parallel tests into their own run. In other words, give up and use two test runs.
Perhaps there is a way to merge two TAP result streams together that I have yet to recover.
I'm not too concerned with how I will manage the list of exceptions. Either I can keep a list in a file as part of the test harness infrastructure, or I could put something in each test header that would mark it as such, and our test harness could determine the list of exceptions dynamically.
( The test suite is partially based on Test::Class, and I'll also be looking at Test::Class::Load to speed it up as well. )
I found a solution. It's in the documentation for aggregate_tests() for TAP::Harness. It includes a code sample for how I could write my own harness for this purpose:
...This is useful, for example, in the case where some tests should
run in parallel but others are unsuitable for parallel execution.
my $formatter = TAP::Formatter::Console->new;
my $ser_harness = TAP::Harness->new( { formatter => $formatter } );
my $par_harness = TAP::Harness->new(
{ formatter => $formatter,
jobs => 9
}
);
my $aggregator = TAP::Parser::Aggregator->new;
$aggregator->start();
$ser_harness->aggregate_tests( $aggregator, #ser_tests );
$par_harness->aggregate_tests( $aggregator, #par_tests );
$aggregator->stop();
$formatter->summary($aggregator);
From there it looks like I could:
Sub-class App::Prove and override _runtests(), which is where the new functionality above could be merged in.
Fork prove so that it calls My::App::Prove instead of App::Prove.
Now that I better understand how the pieces fit together I can see how I might create a patch for prove that would add an option like --exclude-from-parallel FILE, which would allow you to specify a file, which contains a list of test files to be excluded from parallel testing.
UPDATE 2012-08-16: I have a patch for prove now, and have submitted it for review. You can view and comment on the Pull Request. No summary is produced after the run output. It's not clear why.
I've now found the best solution so far to this problem. In turns out that prove has had undocumented support for marking some tests to be run in sequence instead of parallel since 2008. It's backed by a rather fancy "rules" system in TAP::Parser::Scheduler that allows for complex specifications of ordering arrangements for parallel and sequential test runs.
Here's the basic current recipe for prove:
# All tests are allowed to run in parallel, except those starting with "p"
--rules='seq=t/p*.t' --rules='par=**'
I have a new pull request that adds documentation for this feature, and have started a discussion about possibly offering a simpler syntax for basic exceptions as well. See the pull request for details.
I found another solution which advertised this feature, but I could only get trivial cases to work. It's to use Test::Steering. It allows me to do this:
include_tests( { jobs => 4 }, #parallel_tests );
include_tests( #serial_tests );
With this solution, be aware:
Before it actually works, I currently have to patch the code to fix a basic bug with it that has remained unpatched for multiple years.
Additional code is needed to handle generating the list of of parallel and serial tests to run.
I didn't actually get a combined summary for my real-world test... both sections emitted their own summary reports, so it didn't really work. Maybe I missed something, or maybe it's broken.
Test::Parallel also provides an easier way to run some tests in parallel
have a look at the sample from https://metacpan.org/pod/Test::Parallel
Another option: use a rules file for TAP::Harness.
You can build custom rules in a YAML file (called testrules.yml by default). I needed something similar to what you describe, which I was able to do with a testrules.yml file that looked like this:
---
seq:
# tests that are not parallel-ready (will run in isolation)
- seq:
- t/test1.t
- t/test2.t
# tests that can run in parallel
- par:
# wildcard for everything else
- **
In my case, I was using this with code that directly called App::Prove, rather than command-line prove. But I think it would work with prove too?
I have a list of several thousand NUnit tests that I want to run (generated automatically by another tool). (This is a subset of all of the tests, and changes frequently)
I'd like to be able to run these via NUnit-Console.exe. Unfortunately the /run option only takes a direct list of files which in my case would not fit on a single command line. I'd like it to pickup the list from a filename.
I appreciate that I could use categories, but the list I want to run changes frequently and so I'd prefer not to have to start changing source code.
Does anyone know if there is a clean way to get NUnit to run my specified tests?
(I could break it down into a series of smaller calls to NUnit-console with a full command line, but that's not very elegant)
(If it's not possible, maybe I should add it as an NUnit feature request.)
Had a reply from Charlie Poole (from NUnit development team), that this is not currently possible but has been added as a feature request for NUnit 2.6
I see what you're saying, but like you say you can run a single fixture from the command line.
nunit-console /fixture:namespace.fixture tests.dll
How about generating all the tests in the same fixture? Or place them all in the same assembly?
nunit-console tests.dll
As mentioned in the nunitLink, we need to mention the scenario/test case name. It simple but it has bit of a trick in it. Directly mentioning the test case name will not serve the purpose and you will end up with the 0 testcases executed. We need to write the exact path for the same.
I don't know how it works for other languages but using c# I have found a solution. Whenever we create a feature file corresponding feature.cs file get's created in Visual Studio. Click on the featureFileName.feature.cs and look for namespace and keep it aside(Part 1)
namespace MMBank.Test.Features
Scroll a bit down you will get the class name. Note that as well and keep it aside(Part 2)
public partial class HistoricalTransactionFeature
Keep scrolling down, you will see the code which nunit understands for execution basically.
[NUnit.Framework.TestAttribute()]
[NUnit.Framework.DescriptionAttribute("TC_1_A B C D")]
[NUnit.Framework.CategoryAttribute("MM_Bank")]
Below the code you can see the function/method name which will most likely be TC_1_ABCD(certain parameters)
public virtual void TC_1_ABCD(string username, string password, string visit)
You will be having multiple such methods based on no. of scenarios you have in your feature file. Note the method(test case) which you want to execute and keep it aside(Part 3)
Now collate all the parts with dots. Finally you will land up with something like this,
MMBank.Test.Features.HistoricalTransactionFeature.TC_1_ABCD
This is it. Similarly you can create the test case names from multiple feature files and stack them up in text file. Every test case name should be in different line. For command you can browse through above nunit link for execution using command prompt.
So I have my project and it is set up like this:
MyProject
MyProject.Module1
MyProject.Module1.Tests
MyProject.Module2
MyProject.Module2.Tests
What I want is the code coverage number for the entire project.
I am using nCover... what is the best way to do this? For example would I have to rearrange the project and have everything put into MyProject.Tests?
It depends on how you're testing. Most test frameworks will let you run tests for multiple assemblies as separate arguments. If you can't run them all together, you can always use NCover's merge feature. Check out http://docs.ncover.com/ref/2-0/ncoverexplorer-console/merging-coverage-data/.