Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Carlos Sanchez
I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of the problems

- found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
with this workaround most of the integration tests pass

- fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192

- make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and NMAVEN-186
just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14

- hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
NMAVEN-8 (reopened)

If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.

Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
NUnit annotations

Thanks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

brettporter
Administrator

On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:

> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of  
> the problems
>
> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass
>
> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192
>
> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and  
> NMAVEN-186
> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14
>
> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
> NMAVEN-8 (reopened)
>
> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.

Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at these  
over the next few days.

>
>
> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
> NUnit annotations

That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Carlos Sanchez
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of the
>> problems
>>
>> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
>> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
>> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass
>>
>> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192
>>
>> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and
>> NMAVEN-186
>> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14
>>
>> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
>> NMAVEN-8 (reopened)
>>
>> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
>> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
>> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.
>
> Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at these over
> the next few days.

the details are in NMAVEN-186 with the integration tests that expose the problem

>
>>
>>
>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>> NUnit annotations
>
> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?


yep


>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [hidden email]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Wendy Smoak
In reply to this post by brettporter
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:

>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>> NUnit annotations
>
> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?

It seems to have an added complication here-- if the installed version
of NUnit (nunit-console) is different from the one in the pom, it can
cause the tests to not run correctly.

Java doesn't require that JUnit be installed and on your PATH.

--
Wendy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

James Carpenter-2
You could avoid having NUnit on your path if you programatically use the artifact resolver to pull down NUnit for you and throw it in the target directory somewhere.  (Usually target/plugin-name/....)  I have done this in the distant past.
 
If you dig around in the maven mailing lists you will find a description of how to do this.

--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Wendy Smoak <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Wendy Smoak <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14
To: [hidden email]
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 10:59 AM

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:

>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>> NUnit annotations
>
> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?

It seems to have an added complication here-- if the installed version
of NUnit (nunit-console) is different from the one in the pom, it can
cause the tests to not run correctly.

Java doesn't require that JUnit be installed and on your PATH.

--
Wendy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Carlos Sanchez
if I'm right that's how NMaven works, dlls are copied to the target dir

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:16 PM, James Carpenter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You could avoid having NUnit on your path if you programatically use the artifact resolver to pull down NUnit for you and throw it in the target directory somewhere.  (Usually target/plugin-name/....)  I have done this in the distant past.
>
> If you dig around in the maven mailing lists you will find a description of how to do this.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/2/08, Wendy Smoak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> From: Wendy Smoak <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 10:59 AM
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>>> NUnit annotations
>>
>> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?
>
> It seems to have an added complication here-- if the installed version
> of NUnit (nunit-console) is different from the one in the pom, it can
> cause the tests to not run correctly.
>
> Java doesn't require that JUnit be installed and on your PATH.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

brettporter
Administrator
In reply to this post by brettporter
Ok, I started doing this on a branch and added some notes about my  
progress. Anyone have any thoughts on that approach?

I checked in with Milos about the toolchains. He said the copying to  
M2_HOME/lib is not needed if you have the extension - and it seems  
that the first part of the patch on NMAVEN-147 might be aimed to  
address that issue. Milos also agreed that the change to the  
configuration proposed there seemed to make sense so I'll review that  
patch again.

However, the ITs do run without them (as long as everything is in the  
path, 0.14 style), so I've gone towards getting that combo running  
first, then add the toolchains as an extra layer next for now.

Cheers,
Brett

On 02/09/2008, at 3:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

>
> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of  
>> the problems
>>
>> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
>> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
>> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass
>>
>> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192
>>
>> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and  
>> NMAVEN-186
>> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14
>>
>> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
>> NMAVEN-8 (reopened)
>>
>> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
>> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
>> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.
>
> Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at  
> these over the next few days.
>
>>
>>
>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>> NUnit annotations
>
> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [hidden email]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

Carlos Sanchez-4
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Brett Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ok, I started doing this on a branch and added some notes about my progress.
> Anyone have any thoughts on that approach?
>
> I checked in with Milos about the toolchains. He said the copying to
> M2_HOME/lib is not needed if you have the extension - and it seems that the
> first part of the patch on NMAVEN-147 might be aimed to address that issue.
> Milos also agreed that the change to the configuration proposed there seemed
> to make sense so I'll review that patch again.

it shouldn't be needed ;) but it is for me

i also like the toolchain config


>
> However, the ITs do run without them (as long as everything is in the path,
> 0.14 style), so I've gone towards getting that combo running first, then add
> the toolchains as an extra layer next for now.


I haven't tried without the toolchain, just copying to M2_HOME/lib


>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 02/09/2008, at 3:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of the
>>> problems
>>>
>>> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
>>> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
>>> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass
>>>
>>> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192
>>>
>>> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and
>>> NMAVEN-186
>>> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14
>>>
>>> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
>>> NMAVEN-8 (reopened)
>>>
>>> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
>>> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
>>> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.
>>
>> Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at these
>> over the next few days.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>>> NUnit annotations
>>
>> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [hidden email]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fixing integration tests and running them against 0.14

brettporter
Administrator
In reply to this post by brettporter

On 23/09/2008, at 1:37 AM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Ok, I started doing this on a branch and added some notes about my  
> progress. Anyone have any thoughts on that approach?

It's now possible to run the ITs on trunk against 0.14-incubating-
SNAPSHOT, 0.15-incubating and 0.16-incubating-SNAPSHOT independently.

I'm working on the toolchains again next to be able to easily run the  
ITs against a non-default configuration, then I expect to merge it  
back to trunk.

- Brett

>
>
> I checked in with Milos about the toolchains. He said the copying to  
> M2_HOME/lib is not needed if you have the extension - and it seems  
> that the first part of the patch on NMAVEN-147 might be aimed to  
> address that issue. Milos also agreed that the change to the  
> configuration proposed there seemed to make sense so I'll review  
> that patch again.
>
> However, the ITs do run without them (as long as everything is in  
> the path, 0.14 style), so I've gone towards getting that combo  
> running first, then add the toolchains as an extra layer next for now.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 02/09/2008, at 3:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some  
>>> of the problems
>>>
>>> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to
>>> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186
>>> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass
>>>
>>> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192
>>>
>>> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and  
>>> NMAVEN-186
>>> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14
>>>
>>> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed
>>> NMAVEN-8 (reopened)
>>>
>>> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane)
>>> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the
>>> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14.
>>
>> Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at  
>> these over the next few days.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom
>>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with
>>> NUnit annotations
>>
>> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> [hidden email]
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>

--
Brett Porter
[hidden email]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/