Re: NUnit XML Output

Hi Aiste,

> >> On the logging side - presumably at the end of the test, a 
> XML write 
> >> is called which includes validating the XML by closing tags at the 
> >> end etc.  Can this not be called after each fixture, just 
> overwriting 
> >> the previous file with the 'latest' results?  To anyone that just 
> >> uses the xml file created at the end, the behaviour would not have 
> >> changed from their original usage, and for those that like the 
> >> incremental results, the benefit is substantial (well for 
> me it would 
> >> be :))
> 
> > We could write the entire file at the end of each fixture, but that 
> > seems a bit of a kluge, with potential bad side effects 
> down the road. 
> > For example, when we are running two fixtures in parallel.
> 
> I would join those who would like incremental logging. I 
> actually wrote to this mailing list quite a while ago, asking 
> if it was possible to flush the log file after each test, but 
> it got lost or something. 

I do remember such a discussion, but maybe it was with someone
else. I have to distinguish here, however. NUnit does *not*
have a log file and I think one issue with this discussion is
that some people want TestResult.xml to become a log file.

If we need a log file, I believe we should create one, based
on some stories about how it would be used. But many people
have already built apps based on the test result file and
it doesn't seem right to change it in order to serve an
entirely different purpose, especially when NUnit already
has a quite different mechanism for incremental progress
reporting.

> So I ended up implementing my own 
> logging, with only the basic information I needed. 

That's what I believe should be done in NUnit, but the
request was to specifically modify the creation of
TestResult.xml so it could be used for a new purpose.
That sounds a bit risky.

> It is 
> still XML with all its advantages. I can't remember exactly 
> now, but I think I overwrite it instead of appending. 

I'm wondering how this scales. Also, how well it serves the
use case somebody mentioned where the test does not terminate.
However, it's an implementation detail for whoever implements it.

> No clue 
> about parallel running though - never used it or even thought 
> it was possible :) 

It's only just becoming possible.

> However IMHO running two fixtures in 
> parallel and need for incremental logging is equally 
> common/incommon. Well, but even if I am not really sure how 
> running tests in parallel works, I am quite sure that there's 
> not so much overhead for implementing logging having it in 
> mind. Maybe having separate log files, maybe merging them 
> afterwards or maybe just synchronizing writing to the file.

My example was just one example, given as a way of saying
"It's not as trivial as you see to think."

> My main reason for incremental logging was one kind of tests 
> crashing Nunit randomly, which I could not find a way to 
> resolve. So I would just rerun the tests from where they 
> crashed if it happened.

Why not just look at the text output - after setting it to
display the name of each test as it starts?

> Any other format for log files is acceptable for me, as long 
> as they can be viewed comfortably (as xml is with xls). NUnit 
> custom appendable format may be used with Nunit's own viewer, 
> for example.

As I have always understood the term, "log" implies trivial 
viewing - possibly in a text editor. Log data is sequential
and (usually) unstructured. I think of log4net, nlog or
trace when I hear "log." I think some things work well with
a log, while others require an object representation of some
sort - as is the case of the test result format.

I would be OK with a log having individual entries that used
XML - It wouldn't be a valid XML document, but could contain
all the correct data.

IMO, we need to go back to what you - and others - want to
accomplish and figure out how it needs to work rather than
starting with an existing feature - intended for a different
purpose - and trying to modify to do... what? I'm not really
sure if I know the scope of what is being asked for.
 
Charlie

> Best regards,
> Aiste
>  
> 
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of 
> virus signature database 3365 (20080818) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
>  
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move 
> Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based 
> applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize 
> is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the 
> world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Nunit-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-users
> 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/