xunitcontrib Discussions Rss Feed

New Post: xUnit 1.6 support

mattellis — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:40 GMT

Er, I don't know where subspec comes from - I can't provide technical support for it. If you can find the download, perhaps there's a newer version that supports xunit 1.9.1, or perhaps the download includes the required xunit 1.5.

New Post: xUnit 1.6 support

NithyaV — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:58:17 GMT

Thanks for the response.

I have got the supspec very long back(2 years ago)..

Can you pls help me to get the latest version of subspec(to support in visual studio 2012)?

New Post: xUnit 1.6 support

mattellis — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:38:40 GMT

Something's trying to load xunit 1.5, although you said you added 1.9.

Where did you get subspec from? What version of xunit does it require?

New Post: xUnit 1.6 support

NithyaV — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:20:58 GMT

Hi ,

I am using visual studio 2012 and added XUnit 1.9 and SubSpec.dll in Add reference and tried to run the test.

I got the below error. :( Can any one of you help me to resolve on this issue?

Error: System.IO.FileLoadException: Could not load file or assembly 'xunit, Version=1.5.0.1479, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=8d05b1bb7a6fdb6c' or one of its dependencies. The located assembly's manifest definition does not match the assembly reference. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131040)
File name: 'xunit, Version=1.5.0.1479, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=8d05b1bb7a6fdb6c'
at System.ModuleHandle.ResolveType(RuntimeModule module, Int32 typeToken, IntPtr* typeInstArgs, Int32 typeInstCount, IntPtr* methodInstArgs, Int32 methodInstCount, ObjectHandleOnStack type)
at System.ModuleHandle.ResolveTypeHandleInternal(RuntimeModule module, Int32 typeToken, RuntimeTypeHandle[] typeInstantiationContext, RuntimeTypeHandle[] methodInstantiationContext)
at System.Reflection.RuntimeModule.ResolveType(Int32 metadataToken, Type[] genericTypeArguments, Type[] genericMethodArguments)
at System.Reflection.CustomAttribute.FilterCustomAttributeRecord(CustomAttributeRecord caRecord, MetadataImport scope, Assembly& lastAptcaOkAssembly, RuntimeModule decoratedModule, MetadataToken decoratedToken, RuntimeType attributeFilterType, Boolean mustBeInheritable, Object[] attributes, IList derivedAttributes, RuntimeType& attributeType, IRuntimeMethodInfo& ctor, Boolean& ctorHasParameters, Boolean& isVarArg)
at System.Reflection.CustomAttribute.IsCustomAttributeDefined(RuntimeModule decoratedModule, Int32 decoratedMetadataToken, RuntimeType attributeFilterType, Int32 attributeCtorToken, Boolean mustBeInheritable)
at System.Reflection.CustomAttribute.IsDefined(RuntimeMethodInfo method, RuntimeType caType, Boolean inherit)
at System.Reflection.RuntimeMethodInfo.IsDefined(Type attributeType, Boolean inherit)
at Xunit.Sdk.Reflector.ReflectionMethodInfo.HasAttribute(Type attributeType)
at Xunit.Sdk.MethodUtility.IsTest(IMethodInfo method)
at Xunit.Sdk.TypeUtility.<GetTestMethods>d__0.MoveNext()
at Xunit.Sdk.TypeUtility.ContainsTestMethods(ITypeInfo type)
at Xunit.Sdk.TypeUtility.IsTestClass(ITypeInfo type)
at Xunit.Sdk.TestClassCommandFactory.Make(ITypeInfo typeInfo)
at Xunit.Sdk.Executor.RunTests..ctor(Executor executor, String type, List

1 methods, Object handler)

   at Xunit.Sdk.Executor.RunClass..ctor(Executor executor, String type, Object handler)

   at Xunit.ExecutorWrapper.RethrowWithNoStackTraceLoss(Exception ex)

   at Xunit.ExecutorWrapper.CreateObject(String typeName, Object[] args)

   at Xunit.ExecutorWrapper.RunClass(String type, Predicate

1 callback)
at Xunit.TestRunner.<>c__DisplayClass6.<RunClass>b__4()
at Xunit.TestRunner.CatchExceptions(TestRunnerDelegate func)

WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF.
To enable assembly bind failure logging, set the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1.
Note: There is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure logging.
To turn this feature off, remove the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].

Thanks,
Nithya

New Post: [PrioritizedFixture] and ReSharper 7.1

mattellis — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:48:59 GMT

I'm afraid right now, there is no work around. The ReSharper plugin doesn't support the RunWith attribute, mainly because the plugin knows that a method with a FactAttribute is a test method, but RunWith changes that - tests no longer have to be associated with a test method. And PrioritizedFixture is implemented using RunWith. I would like to change this, and add support for RunWith. I think it can be done in a manner similar to the Theory suppport, but it's quite a large change, and I won't be able to get around to it in the immediate future (I'm currently looking at supporting the ReSharper 8.0 EAP and the early builds of xunit 2.0).

New Post: [PrioritizedFixture] and ReSharper 7.1

hammadmirza — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:45:46 GMT

Hi,

I am using ReSharper 7.1 for running my xUnit test. i just tried the sample which uses [PrioritizedFixture] attribute on the Class containing Fact / Test methods but now ReSharper doesnt recognises the Class as containing Test Methods. But when i remove that Attribute on class immediately ReSharper recognises it but then the Priority Attributes wont work.

Does any one knows the work around for it?

Regards

New Post: R# 7.1.1

daniel_lidstrom — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:34:07 GMT

Hi Matellis,
<div><br> </div> <div>sorry for the late reply. I have got it working now. Turns out ReSharper has an option to turn of unit testing that I didn't realize. Anyway, it works fine. Thanks for xunitcontrib!</div> <div><br> </div> <div>/Daniel<br> <br> <div>2012/12/26 mattellis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:notifications@codeplex.com" target="_blank">notifications@codeplex.com</a>></span><br> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex"> <div> <p>From: mattellis</p> <div> <p>Hi Daniel. The current download should work with 7.1.1 - there were no breaking API changes. What's happening with your installation that it's not working? What do you see?</p> </div> <div> <p>Read the <a href="http://xunitcontrib.codeplex.com/discussions/418106#post973883" target="_blank"> full discussion online</a>.</p> <p>To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (<a href="mailto:xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com?subject=[xunitcontrib:418106]" target="_blank">xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com</a>)</p> <p>To start a new discussion for this project, email <a href="mailto:xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com" target="_blank"> xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com</a></p> <p>You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can <a href="https://xunitcontrib.codeplex.com/discussions/418106/unsubscribe/" target="_blank"> unsubscribe</a> on CodePlex.com.</p> <p>Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at CodePlex.com</p> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <br clear="all"> <div><br> </div> -- <br> Daniel </div>

New Post: R# 7.1.1

mattellis — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:07:19 GMT

Hi Daniel. The current download should work with 7.1.1 - there were no breaking API changes. What's happening with your installation that it's not working? What do you see?

New Post: R# 7.1.1

daniel_lidstrom — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:25:51 GMT

Any chance we'll get an update for R# 7.1.1000.900? The latest plugin says it supports R# 7.1.25.234 and I can't get it to work.

Thanks in advance!

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

georgiosd — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:26:19 GMT

I ended up switching to SpecFlow - I thought I'd find the Gherkin editor annoying but it's actually pretty neat - I like the data/scenario + implementation separation.
NSpec was doing my head in with all the nested lambdas.
Just a heads up :)

From: [email removed]
To: [email removed]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:33:17 -0800
Subject: Re: ReSharper 7 EAP [xunitcontrib:347526]

From: mattellis

I know, I'm easily swayed. BTW, where's the "run on build" feature of vs11? I'm having a play, but can't find it.
And resharper doesn't have a feature for this - my guess being that you can just run all tests or the current session and that forces a build anyway - so instead of hitting ctrl+shift+B, hit ctrl+T, R and you've got the same feature. That said, I did see a VS extension that might be interesting: http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/5dca9c5c-29cf-4fd7-b3ff-573e5776f0bd?SRC=VSIDE

Read the full discussion online.
To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com)
To start a new discussion for this project, email xunitcontrib@discussions.codeplex.com
You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe on CodePlex.com.
Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at CodePlex.com

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

georgiosd — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:11:17 GMT

It's under Test -> Test Settings -> Run tests after build
But the Resharper plugin looks awesome too!

From: [email removed]
To: [email removed]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:33:17 -0800
Subject: Re: ReSharper 7 EAP [xunitcontrib:347526]

From: mattellis

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

mattellis — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:33:09 GMT

I know, I'm easily swayed. BTW, where's the "run on build" feature of vs11? I'm having a play, but can't find it.

And resharper doesn't have a feature for this - my guess being that you can just run all tests or the current session and that forces a build anyway - so instead of hitting ctrl+shift+B, hit ctrl+T, R and you've got the same feature. That said, I did see a VS extension that might be interesting: http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/5dca9c5c-29cf-4fd7-b3ff-573e5776f0bd?SRC=VSIDE

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

georgiosd — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:05:18 GMT

Hehe, crazy indeed. But I'm very frustrated by the state of BDD test frameworks so I may just attempt it and see how it goes.
I'm not saying the outcome will be better than what's already out there, but if it is, I'm sure I'll sway you into the odd pull request :P

From: [email removed]
To: [email removed]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:42:27 -0800
Subject: Re: ReSharper 7 EAP [xunitcontrib:347526]

From: mattellis

Oh no, I'm not going to start writing test frameworks. That's just crazy talk :) No, I'm happy to push my tweaks to the nspec adapter back, but I'm not going to start anything new...

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

mattellis — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:42:23 GMT

Oh no, I'm not going to start writing test frameworks. That's just crazy talk :) No, I'm happy to push my tweaks to the nspec adapter back, but I'm not going to start anything new...

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

georgiosd — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:17:41 GMT

Wow, you re fast!

It would indeed be wonderful though a vs11 test plugin may make more sense given the "run tests on build" feature that R# is lacking afaik.

Re the example command, if you look at the nspec source, ContextBuilder, you ll see that the context is built as a tree and not monolithic as in the case on this nspec xunit adaptation. I still havent figured out how to build it partially.

And to be honest, im annoyed at the spaghetti that you get with nspec that im considering writing my own bdd test framework. You up for it? :)

Sent from my iPad

On 15 Νοε 2012, at 21:46, "mattellis" <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: mattellis

Also, with my JetBrains plugin evangelist hat on, a ReSharper nspec test runner plugin could be interesting, too...

New Post: Problem with showing complete list of sub tests when running Theory

mattellis — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:34:48 GMT

See work item: 4155. Should be fixed soon.

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

mattellis — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:28:09 GMT

Also, with my JetBrains plugin evangelist hat on, a ReSharper nspec test runner plugin could be interesting, too...

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

mattellis — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:27:18 GMT

Well, I don't know anything about the beforeEach, but you can get much better results with a few tweaks to ExampleCommand (I couldn't leave it not quite working :). As well as formatting the FailedResult exception details correctly, if you derive from TestCommand and use its ToStartXml, things start working a whole lot better - each "it" statement is treated like a Theory, and gets a new node under the method in ReSharper's test runner tree.

Here are the changes to the ExampleCommand (I split all of the files out):

(And I've just noticed there's a GitHub repo. I should probably send a pull request with these changes)

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Xml;
using NSpec;
using NSpec.Domain;
using Xunit.Sdk;

namespace UnitTestProject1
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Implements a <see cref="T:Xunit.Sdk.ITestCommand"/> that invokes all NSpec <see cref="T:NSpec.Domain.Example"/> in one method.
    /// </summary>
    internal class ExampleCommand : TestCommand
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="T:NSpecAdapterForxUnit.ExampleCommand"/> to a specific <see cref="T:NSpec.Domain.Example"/>.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="method">The method that contains the <paramref name="example"/>.</param>
        /// <param name="example">The example to run.</param>
        /// <param name="instance">The instance to run the example.</param>
        /// <exception cref="T:System.ArgumentNullException">One of the arguments is <see langword="null"/>. </exception>
        public ExampleCommand(IMethodInfo method, Example example, nspec instance)
            : base(method, example.FullName(), 0)
        {
            if (method == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("method");
            }

            if (example == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("example");
            }

            if (instance == null)
            {
                throw new ArgumentNullException("instance");
            }

            this.Method = method;
            this.Example = example;
            this.Instance = instance;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the method that contains the <see cref="P:Example"/>.
        /// </summary>
        /// <value>The method that contains the <see cref="P:Example"/>.</value>
        public IMethodInfo Method
        {
            get;
            private set;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the <see cref="T:NSpec.Domain.Example"/> to run.
        /// </summary>
        /// <value>The <see cref="T:NSpec.Domain.Example"/> to run.</value>
        public Example Example
        {
            get;
            private set;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Gets the <see cref="NSpec.nspec"/> instance to run the example.
        /// </summary>
        /// <value>The <see cref="NSpec.nspec"/> instance to run the example.</value>
        public nspec Instance
        {
            get;
            private set;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Determines if the test runner infrastructure should create a new instance of the
        /// test class before running the test.
        /// </summary>
        public override bool ShouldCreateInstance
        {
            get
            {
                return false;
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Executes the test method.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="testClass">The instance of the test class</param>
        /// <returns>
        /// Returns information about the test run
        /// </returns>
        public override MethodResult Execute(object testClass)
        {
            //run the example
            try
            {
                this.Example.Context.Exercise(this.Example, this.Instance);
                if (this.Example.HasRun && !Example.Failed() && !Example.Pending) //all good. the test passed.
                {
                    return new PassedResult(
                        this.Method.Name, //methodName
                        this.Method.TypeName, //typeName
                        this.DisplayName, //displayName
                        null); //traits
                }
                else if (this.Example.Failed()) //oh noes!
                {
                    var ex = this.Example.Exception; //TODO: is this always != null?
                    while (ex.InnerException != null)
                    {
                        ex = ex.InnerException;
                    }

                    return new FailedResult(Method, ex, DisplayName);
                }
                else //TODO: this should be pending examples
                {
                    //TODO: how to mark the test as inconclusive?
                    return new SkipResult(
                        this.Method.Name, //methodName
                        this.Method.TypeName, //typeName
                        this.DisplayName, //displayName
                        null, //traits
                        "Pending"); //reason
                }
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                while (ex.InnerException != null)
                {
                    ex = ex.InnerException;
                }

                return new FailedResult(Method, ex, DisplayName);
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Obtains all test commands to call all examples contained in a given <see cref="T:IMethodInfo"/>.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="method">The method to scan.</param>
        /// <returns>All test commands to call all examples contained in <paramref name="method"/>.</returns>
        internal static IEnumerable<ITestCommand> CreateForMethod(IMethodInfo method)
        {
            //create a new instance of our specification
            var instance = method.CreateInstance() as nspec;
            if (instance == null) //not a nspec instance, nothing for us here.
            {
                return Enumerable.Empty<ITestCommand>();
            }

var context = new MethodContext(method.MethodInfo);

context.Build(instance);

var commands = new List<ITestCommand>();

BuildCommandList(method, instance, context, commands);

return commands;
}

        /// <summary>
        /// Recursively adds commands to all examples in a given <see cref="T:Context"/>.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="method">The method where the examples belong.</param>
        /// <param name="instance">The <see cref="T:nspec"/> instance.</param>
        /// <param name="context">The parent context.</param>
        /// <param name="commands">A list where the commands will be stored.</param>
        private static void BuildCommandList(IMethodInfo method, nspec instance, Context context, List<ITestCommand> commands)
        {
            foreach (var example in context.Examples)
            {
                commands.Add(new ExampleCommand(method, example, instance));
            }

            foreach (var childContext in context.ChildContexts())
            {
                BuildCommandList(method, instance, childContext, commands);
            }
        }
    }
}

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

georgiosd — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:56:56 GMT

Thanks for looking into it but I've concluded the plugin is too incomplete to be of any use.
Basically it creates the nspec context purely based on the method which means that beforeEach and other such nice things won't work.

I've also concluded the wisest thing for me would be to write a VS11 unit test discoverer/runner for nspec, separate from xunit.
This is because the nspec discovery model seems to match more that of VS11 than that of xunit

If I do get round to it I'll release the source - let me know if you'd like to take a look and I'll post here.

From: [email removed]
To: [email removed]
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:14:35 -0800
Subject: Re: ReSharper 7 EAP [xunitcontrib:347526]

From: mattellis

OK, there are really two problems here. Firstly, you're not giving the ReSharper runner exception details in the format it's expecting, and secondly, the ReSharper runner isn't handling exception details in the wrong format correctly. I'll fix the second one, I'll let you fix the first.
You need to change your calls to new FailedResult() - either use the overload that lets you pass in the exception directly, or use xunit's ExceptionUtility.GetMessage and ExceptionUtility.GetStackTrace. These two helper methods get the message and stack trace, *including inner exceptions*, and in so doing change the format slightly. I have to confess that I don't like this, as I have to parse the strings to get proper exception information back out again - I would have preferred arrays of strings or somesuch. Regardless, my parsing doesn't like it when you give it a normal message that hasn't been formatted to include the exception type. I'll get that fixed for the next release.

New Post: ReSharper 7 EAP

mattellis — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:14:32 GMT

You need to change your calls to new FailedResult() - either use the overload that lets you pass in the exception directly, or use xunit's ExceptionUtility.GetMessage and ExceptionUtility.GetStackTrace. These two helper methods get the message and stack trace, *including inner exceptions*, and in so doing change the format slightly. I have to confess that I don't like this, as I have to parse the strings to get proper exception information back out again - I would have preferred arrays of strings or somesuch. Regardless, my parsing doesn't like it when you give it a normal message that hasn't been formatted to include the exception type. I'll get that fixed for the next release.