I've created a test suite in NUnit that references several distinct unit test fixtures in various assemblies.
I've pretty much used the example code from NUnit's docs:
namespace NUnit.Tests
{
using System;
using NUnit.Framework;
using System.Collections;
public class AllTests
{
[Suite]
public static IEnumerable Suite
{
get
{
ArrayList suite = new ArrayList();
suite.Add(new VisionMap.DotNet.Tests.ManagedInteropTest.DotNetUtilsTest());
return suite;
}
}
}
}
My goal is to add several tests to the list above so I can run them all in a batch.
But when I try to load the DLL in NUnit's GUI I get this:
What am I doing wrong?
I'm aware that the docs say the GUI won't run suites, but I've tried the console as well. Can somebody please tell me what Suites are good for and how I can use them to achieve my goal?
I'm using nunit 2.5.0.9122.
Edit
Well, no answers are forthcoming. I found an alternative solution in the end: Categories. I group test fixtures by giving them appropriate categories and then I can run a subset of them in batch, while still ignoring another subset.
Still, very odd that this Suite feature seems to be completely broken.
Suites aren't really needed for anything much at all these days. If you only wanted to use them to specify which tests do and don't get run this is much better achieved with Category attributes. This is what you ended up doing, and sounds like the best solution to your problem.
However, for others' and future reference, you can still use Suites in Nunit. You have to run them from the console, and only using the /fixture option. For example, to run the suite you specified above, you'd run (assuming your class was compiled into an assembly AllTests.dll):
nunit-console /fixture:AllTests.Suite AllTests.dll
You won't see any evidence of or way to run suites in the GUI - this is noted in the documentation. You can however run them from the console that is built into the GUI using commands like the above.
I use suites in some of my testing because I have some odd use cases that require me to sometimes need to pass an argument to my test methods. I do this by creating a suite such as the below. So there are some uses for them, just none needed in your case.
[Suite]
public static IEnumerable MySuite
{
get
{
var suite = new ArrayList{new TestClass1(arg1), TestClass2(arg2)};
return suite;
}
}
Is there any reason why you are returning "IEnumerable" instead of "TestSuite"?
[Suite]
public static TestSuite Suite
Update
Reading the small-print at the bottom of the page at NUnit site, it looks like Suite type tests will not show in in the Gui runner, so I guess that's the issue :)
Suites are currently not displayed in the Gui or run automatically by either runner when they are encountered. The historical purpose of the Suite mechanism was to provide a way of aggregating tests at the top level of each run. Hence, they are only supported when used with the /fixture option on the console or gui command line.
Update 2
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with the "Suite" feature, but if you are trying to find a way of configuring a set of test assemblies to be run together, I have used "NUnit Test Projects" to do this in the past (it's just an xml config file listing test dlls). This allows a fixed set of test assembly references to be configured and then loaded into the GUI or run by the console runner:
http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=multiAssembly&r=2.5.5
Related
I have a selenium project written with NUnit in C# .NET 6. I have a folder called 'Tests' where there are multiple sub folders and each folder has a lot of classes. Each class has only one Test method. The reason for this is for structuring the project and each class represents one process in the software I'm testing. However, some processes need to be run after some other processes have already ran.
My question is; is there any way to run the classes in a specific order I want? I have tried using
dotnet test --filter
However this did not work. I also tried using NUnit's
Order
attribute but this works only when a class has multiple test methods.
The Order attribute may be placed on a class or a method. From the NUnit docs:
The OrderAttribute may be placed on a test method or fixture to specify the order in which tests are run within the fixture or other suite in which they are contained.
The bold italics in the citation are mine. In your case, the "other suite" containing the fixture class is the namespace in which it is defined.
There is no "global" ordering facility, but if all your tests are in the same namespace, using the OrderAttribute on the fixtures will cause them to run in the order you specify. If it doesn't interfere with any other use of the namespaces you might consider putting them all in one namespace.
A couple of notes:
The OrderAttribute specifies the order in which the tests start. If you run tests in parallel, multiple tests may run at the same time.
It's not advisable to have the tests depend on one another in most cases.
There are lots of reasons not to control the order of tests, which are covered in the answers quoted by other folks. I'm just answering the specific "how-to" question you posed.
For quick experiments, I prefer to use "unit tests" –i.e. annotating one (or more) method with [TestMethod]– over creating a tiny project with a Main method.
A test method has some advantages over a tiny project:
it is quicker to write a method and annotate it with [TestMethod] than to create a new project;
the test method can use facilities provides by the visual studio test tools such as test fixtures shared with similar experiments (via [TestInitialize]);
the method can be executed by right clicking and selecting "Run test" (in visual studio 2015);
and,
using Assert() instead of inspecting a value via the debugger or via Console.WriteLine() automatically documents the intent and the results of the experiment and makes it repeatable without manual intervention.
A problem is that these experiments show up in the visual studio test explorer, this causes clutter and makes it difficult to distinguish real unit tests from experiments. (I'm not using any other testing reporting tools, CI, etc., but I assume that the problem would occur there as well.)
Is there a way to have the advantages of using [TestMethod] for experiments and avoid the clutter that it causes at the same time?
I tried the following to solve this problem:
Have the [TestClass] and the [TestMethod] attributes as comments and uncomment them when you want to run the experiment.
This is what I currently do. It works, but running an experiment is somewhat cumbersome.
Use [Ignore] attribute.
Clutters the test explorer view with ignored tests and requires commenting out the [Ignore] attribute to run the test.
Put experiments in different project; as suggested by Veverke or annotate the test with a [TestCategory] attribute as suggested by C Sharper.
The visual studio test explorer can group tests by either class, duration, outcome, traits, project. To avoid the clutter: Choosing traits allows to keep the tree of tests annotated with [TestCategory("Experiments")] closed or choosing projects allows keeping the "experiments.proj" tree closed.
When using the grouping to distinguish experiments from tests, the other groupings in the test explorer cannot be used.
TL;DR
How to write experiments (using visual studio unit tests) without the experiments cluttering the reports about real unit tests?
Combining the answers:
Do you REALLY want to abuse unit tests as experiments? (comment by Jamie Rees and in answer by C Sharper)
Perhaps Linqpad ([https://www.linqpad.net/]) or something similar is better for experiments.
If you want to abuse unit tests, mark each experiment method with a [TestCategory]. This allows grouping the experiments in the test explorer and selecting which tests to run.(From answer by C Sharper)
Use a build configuration to define a conditional compilation symbol, for example EXPERIMENTS. Use #if EXPERIMENTS to enable or disable the experiments. Use a solution build configuration to be able to enable or disable the experiments from the toolbar.(From answer by Kasper van den Berg
Example:
#if EXPERIMENTS
[TestClass]
public class MyExperiment1
{
[TestMethod, TestCategory("Experiment")]
public void Method1()
{
…
}
}
#endif
Basically you misuse Unit Tests for something for which it was not intended.
But the only solution that comes in my mind is to use [TestCategory] attribute to control when a test runs and in which list it should be.
[TestMethod(), TestCategory("Nightly"), TestCategory("Weekly"), TestCategory("ShoppingCart")]
public void DebitTest()
{
}
Experiments can be disabled via an ifdef, e.g.:
#if EXPERIMENTS
[TestClass]
public class MyExperiment1
{
[TestMethod]
public void Method1()
{
…
}
}
#endif
To enable the experiment add #define EXPERMIMENTS as first line the file; however, this is still cumbersome. The conditional compilation symbol (EXPERIMENTS) can also be defined via project properties. To improve on this, create an build configuration and a solution configuration and define the conditional compilation symbols only for the build configuration.
Good afternoon/morning/evening folks,
I was wondering is it possible for me to "execute" a SpecFlow test via some sort of test harness (not NUnit)?
Previously my test harness I built ran MS Unit tests by calling methods from within the DLL that was created when I compiled the tests.
I'm assuming the same is possible in theory since a DLL is created, but im wondering how it will get all of the arguments etc.
So in short, is this possible if so is there a straight forward way to do this or am I barking up the wrong tree?
It's possible, but I'm not clear why you would want to.
Specflow is basically just a clever way of generating tests. Normally these are nUnit tests, but they can also be switched to use mstest. When you save your edits to the .feature file then VS runs a Custom Tool that converts your plaintext into a .feature.cs file that contains a code version of what you wrote with nUnit attributes applied to the methods.
Later, an nUnit runner (nUnit, resharper, gallio, teamcity etc) loads the dll and looks for all public methods marked with [Test] inside public classes marked with [TestFixture]. These methods get called.
There is nothing to stop you writing your own runner, however I'm not sure why you would do that. nUnit provides extensive reporting of the success of your test run in xml format, so its probably faster just to write something to parse that.
So I decided to invest some time on this and figured that using reflection was the way to do this task.
Here is some of my code:
TestRunner.TestDLLString = getDLL(project);
var TestDLL = Assembly.LoadFrom(TestDLLString);
Type myClassType = TestDLL.GetType("SeleniumDPS." + testname);
var instance = Activator.CreateInstance(myClassType);
MethodInfo myInitMethod = myClassType.GetMethod("Initialize");
try
{
myInitMethod.Invoke(instance, null);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Error logging etc
}
I then repeat that for the "[TestMethod]" etc. I understand some people dislike reflection but in this instance the performance isnt critical so it works quite well for us.
So essentially what im doing is reading on the name of the test from an XML file then searching the DLL for that test method, then executing the Intitialize method, and later on executing the test method itself. After the test is run I then execute the cleanup method.
It might seem a bit hacky and NUnit might seem the logical choice for some, but as I mentioned earlier I needed a customizable approach. Thanks for all the suggestions though.
I've written a class and want to test if it works well. For now I think the best way to do it is to create new console application referencing main project, then make new instance of my class and mess with it. This approach unlike others enables IntelliSense, using keywords (no full names for classes) and Debugging.
Anyone knows how to do it in more convenient way to do this without making new console app?
Using a console app to test your class is what I would call a "poor man's unit test."
You are on the right track in wanting to do this sort of testing and I (and most others on SO) would suggest using a unit testing framework of some sort to help you out. (Mocking may be important and useful to you as well.)
Here's the thing though. Regardless of what framework you use, or if you go with a console app to test your code, you do have to create a separate project, or a separate, significant chunk of code of some sort, to be able to execute tests properly and independently. That's just part of the process. It is an investment but don't let the extra work keep you from doing it. It will save a lot time, and your skin, a little while in the future. Maybe even next week.
Also, while you're looking up unit testing make sure to also study up on test-driven development (TDD.)
Unit testing is absolutely the way to go. Depending on what version of VS you are running, there may be unit testing functionality built in, or you may have to use an additional tool such as NUnit. Both options are good and will allow you to fully test your classes.
Bear in mind also, that a comprehensive suite of unit tests will make refactoring much easier in the long run as well. If you refactor and break your unit tests, you know you've made a boo-boo somewhere. :)
Unit testing is the way forward here> this is a good introductory article.
The basic concept of a unit test is that you isolate and invoke a specific portion of code and assert that the results are expected and within reason. For example lets say you have a simple method to return the square of a floating point number:
public float Square(float value)
{
return value * value;
}
A reasonable unit test would be that the method returns the correct value, handles negetive values etc:
Assert.AreEqual(25, Square(5));
Assert.AreEqual(100, Square(-10));
Unit tests are also a good way to see how your code handles edge cases:
Assert.Throws<OverflowException>(Square(float.MaxValue));
If you are using VS 2010, check out Pex and Moles...
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/pex/
The Console App approach is more of a test harness for your class, which is fine.
But you can also use a unit testing framework to test your class. Visual Studio has one built in or you can leverage something like NUnit.
Also, try the Object Test Bench in Visual Studio. It should allow you to create a new instance, modify and view properties, and call some methods. It usually only works with very simple apps, though.
If you use Visual Studio 2008 or higher you will be able to test your code using MSTest framework:
1.Open Test View window: Test/Windows/Test View;
2.Add new unit test project: right click on Solution in Solution Explorer/Add/New
Project/Test Project;
3.Remove all files apart from UnitTest.cs file in created test project;
4.Write your unit test in method under [TestMethod] attribute:
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
var ranges = new Ranges();
int sum = ranges.CountOccurrences(11);
Assert.AreEqual(128, sum);
}
}
5.Run your test from Test View window added in p.1
6.See test results in Test/Windows/Test Results window
I've got a LOT of tests written for a piece of software (which is a GREAT thing) but it was built essentially as a standalone test in C#. While this works well enough, it suffers from a few shortcomings, not the least of which is that it isn't using a standard testing framework and ends up requiring the person running the test to comment out calls to tests that shouldn't be run (when it isn't desired to run the entire test 'suite'). I'd like to incorporate it into my automated testing process.
I saw that the Test Edition of VS 2008 has the notion of a 'Generic Test' that might do what I want, but we're not in a position to spend the money on that version currently. I recently started using the VS 2008 Pro version.
These test methods follow a familiar pattern:
Do some setup for the test.
Execute the test.
Reset for the next test.
Each of them returns a bool (pass/fail) and a string ref to a fail reason, filled in if it fails.
On the bright side, at least the test methods are consistent.
I am sitting here tonight contemplating the approach I might take tomorrow morning to migrate all this test code to a testing framework and, frankly, I'm not all that excited about the idea of poring over 8-9K lines of test code by hand to do the conversion.
Have you had any experience undertaking such a conversion? Do you have any tips? I think I might be stuck slogging through it all doing global search/replaces and hand-changing the tests.
Any thoughts?
If you use NUnit (which you should), you'll need to create a new test method for each of your current test methods. NUnit uses reflection to query the test class for methods marked with the [Test] attribute, which is how it builds its list of the tests that show up in the UI, and the test classes use the NUnit Assert method to indicate whether they've passed or failed.
It seems to me that if your test methods are as consistent as you say, all of those NUnit methods would look something like this:
[Test]
public void MyTest()
{
string msg;
bool result = OldTestClass.MyTest(out msg);
if (!result)
{
Console.WriteLine(msg);
}
Assert.AreEqual(result, true);
}
Once you get that to work, your next step is to write a program that uses reflection to get all of the test method names on your old test class and produces a .cs file that has an NUnit method for each of your original test methods.
Annoying, maybe, but not extremely painful. And you'll only need to do it once.
You're about to live through the idiom of "An Ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of cure". Its especially true in programming.
You make no mention of NUnit(which I think was bought by Microsoft for 2008, but don't hold me to that). Is there a paticular reason you didn't just use NUnit in the first place?