Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output

[Brett Porter]

Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes  
(though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at all.  
At first glance, it looks possible to me.

The key things are really that:
a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd  
want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests -  
but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.

This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the  
surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test  
executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in  
surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork once,  
fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always otherwise).

wdyt?

- Brett

On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:

So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
providers rely heavily on java reflection.  We will be working with  
nunit
tests on which we cannot use java reflection.  Does anyone have any  
idea how
we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider?  Currently the nunit  
plugin
invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/ 
analyzes the
results.

Thanks for any help,
Evan

On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the  
nunit
output to look like the junit.  However if we could squeeze nunit  
into a
surefire provider, that would be that much better.

When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have  
both
platforms build output consistent.

I will look into a nunit surefire provider.

Thanks,
Evan

On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
> as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
>
> This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on  
the
> > nunit
> > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin.  Currently
> > when nunit
> > tests run, all the output is logged to file.  It is not too much
> > fun when
> > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing.  Here is a  
junit
> > output
> > vs nunit output comparison
> >
> > -- JUNIT --
> > Running package1.TestClass1
> > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > 0.016 sec
> > Running package2.TestClass2
> > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > 0.031 sec
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Results :
> >
> > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> >
> > -- NUNIT --
> > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console  
C:\dev
> > \project
> > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll / 
out
> > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> >
> > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > reformatting and
> > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Evan
>