nunit-core team mailing list archive

[Charlie Poole <charlie@xxxxxxxxx>]

So, the scenario we need to support is...

1) Legacy code (i.e. no tests)
2) Adding tests gradually in the same assembly

In this case, it seems that you would want some indication of the problem,
so that you know tests need to be written, but that it should have a different
appearance, which tells you immediately what the problem is.

This seems to point toward a different symbol in the tree and listing the
assembly itself in the not-run tree.

Does that make sense?

Charlie

PS: The process you are using isn't the way I've generally gone about
introducing NUnit tests into an environment that has not had them
before. I won't go into it here, but if you'd like to drop me a note offline,
I'll be glad to pass on some ideas about this.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:55 AM, simon misys <711330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So are you saying that you might create an assembly with no tests, but
>> later add tests to it? I guess that means you sometimes put tests into
>> the same assembly as the code they are testing.
>
> Sort of.  We already have many assemblies (40) without tests.  There is
> one assembly with tests, but no one apart from the developer who added
> it knew about it because he didn't create a top-level NUnit project for
> all to see.  Only if you opened the assembly in NUnit (or looked at the
> specific code) would you be aware there were any tests.  (None of the
> other developers have made any use of NUnit before.)  But we plan to add
> tests bit by bit, and all developers will do this, as and when
> appropriate and convenient.  Basically, we are not doing anything like
> enough regression testing and we want to address that with NUnit.
>
> In the meantime, we want to create a top-level NUnit project that
> contains all (current) assemblies.  That way, I think all developers are
> likely to be reminded that there are tests; all developers are likely to
> be aware that there are assemblies that aught to have tests but don't;
> developers don't have to check whether they need to add the assembly to
> the NUnit project when they do add tests (they do need to add new
> assemblies of course, but that is rarer than adding new tests to an
> existing assembly, and I suppose it's also possible that a new assembly
> might have no tests as you suggest); automated test runs are easier.
>
> If we only added an assembly to the project as and when tests were added
> to it, I think we run the risk of developers not being encouraged to add
> tests; run the risk of forgetting to add the assembly to the NUnit
> project when tests are first added to an assembly.  We want to set up
> the process to make it as likely and easy as possible that things will
> be done right.
>
> Of course, test-free assemblies don't result in failure _status_ either
> in the progress bar or the client runner.  However, the gripe I had was
> that test-free assemblies are _shown_ with a failure icon in the tree
> display, and that won't help our preferred process.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
> Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/711330
>
> Title:
>  Test-free assembly given failure icon in tree display
>

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/711330

Title:
  Test-free assembly given failure icon in tree display

Status in NUnit V2 Test Framework:
  New

Bug description:
  A test-free assembly is shown with the failure icon, ie, an X with red
  background, in the GUI runner tree display, as is its parent(s).

  However, the progress bar is green, as expected (assuming all other
  tests pass).

  Why would we want to include a test-free assembly?  Because we want to
  create a single NUnit project for an existing large solution (40+
  Visual Studio projects) containing all of its assemblies and
  executables.  As we progressively add new tests to our product, we
  want NUnit to automatically pick them up without anyone having to
  remember to make sure the corresponding assembly/executable have been
  added to the NUnit project (and Debug/Release configurations).

  It is off-putting (to say the least) and misleading for NUnit label such test-free assemblies as failures in the tree display.
  It also contradicts what NUnit reports in the rest of the GUI (and when the NUnit project is run with the console runner).

  So, I think NUnit should not show test-free assemblies as failures in
  the tree display.  I think they should count as a success, ie, shown
  with a check with green background.

  Thanks.