lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:37:44 GMT
Awesome, thanks Wyatt.

Connie, let's go with whatever approach that will allow us touch as few
files as possible. https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172 touches an
awful lot of files - so if adding back those constructors can help with
that let's go for it.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sure thing Itamar.
>
> Any PR will build automatically the way we are setup. The key is the github
> pull request ID -- 172 in this case. Heading on down to our teamcity
> project at http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet
> clicking
> on any of the blue 172s will get the build for that segment of that branch.
> Note that projects unaffected by your changes will not have the branch so
> don't be alarmed if you don't see builds in Lucene.Net.Analysis for
> example.
>
> A direct link to the core build for this PR is
>
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core&branch_LuceneNet=172&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
>
>
> Let me know if you've got further questions.
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:51 PM Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I reviewed your PR - looks mostly good, left a few comments there.
> >
> > Wyatt - can you help Connie with running her branch on the CI?
> >
> > WRT the usage of a seed - yes, we would want to support this, but that's
> > not a trivial task because we need to integrate with the test runner and
> > get a seed from the randomized runner. This is something we will tackle
> > later.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Connie Yau <conniey@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've taken a first step in creating a PR to limit the use of static
> > > variables/methods so that they can be used asynchronously and in
> parallel
> > > when we transition to xUnit.
> > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172
> > >
> > > My next PR would be to actually use xUnit in the LuceneTestCases. I
> have
> > a
> > > branch almost ready.  Would I be able to work with someone to make sure
> > > these work in master in your CI builds? Or should Ikeep the changes to
> > > xUnit in Lucene.NET Core branch?
> > >
> > >
> > > I had a hard time comparing my test results from the existing master
> > > branch to my changes because of the use of static new Random() in
> > > LuceneTestCase.  Eventually I had to use a seed to get consistent
> > results.
> > > Are there any plans to use a seed? I noticed there was a TODO here
> > (_random
> > > = new Random(/* LUCENENET TODO seed */)).
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Connie
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com <itamar.synhershko@gmail.com> on
> > behalf
> > > of Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:28:54 AM
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > >
> > > I don't have an easy answer then. The obvious answer would be to change
> > > this to a Config object that's passed around or similar - or make them
> > > immutable and somehow change that config in the test configuration. A
> > good
> > > place to start is to track the usage, and confirm the intended usage
> > > pattern with the Java codebase just in case.
> > >
> > > About both issues, timeouts and mutable configs - I trust your good
> > > judgment here. What's important is faster running and more stable
> tests,
> > we
> > > can skip Java compatiblilty in the testsframework as long as it's
> > > documented and gives us large benefits.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Jq49Nz%2bncnMPchpLuQ68SimD%2fm6Ea9XMH0GwBb6%2fuy8%3d
> > > | @synhershko <
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=VUl%2bR410%2bKQ5An8pAvc%2f5E5niSbckAR9s21ZtrGCzVg%3d
> > > >
> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Connie Yau <conniey@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, all of the statics are mutable. And some of the test cases make
> > use
> > > > of this... An example is: OLD_FORMAT_IMPERSONATION_IS_ACTIVE.  The
> old
> > > > codec tests modify this field from true/false.
> > > >
> > > > About the Timeout issue, I like Laimonas' suggestion to use a Trait
> to
> > > > ignore running this specific tests until they've been properly
> > > > investigated. Brad points out in this issue that there is no way to
> > > > accurate way to measure Timeouts because of the parallization in
> xUnit
> > (
> > > > https://github.com/xunit/xunit/issues/217).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Connie
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:
> itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:52 PM
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > >
> > > > I believe the statics are remnants of the Lucene Java port, and
> mostly
> > > > readonly configurations. Are any of those statics mutable?
> > > >
> > > > Adding on the timeout thing - this indeed was a precaution. We should
> > > > probably move from a attribute-based timeout to throwing a
> > > TimeoutException
> > > > from the main test method, having the main loop check for the time
> > passed
> > > > since start and throw if it's above the timeout configured?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=RfcfWtLeiAc%2b3JDIALSdcDTae5%2bA7PwdVbVQAAU%2fh1U%3d
> > > > | @synhershko <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=%2fqmKXKltLCaz%2bpDdzAPJRhKlv5hRojyT41IydWUFD9o%3d
> > > > >
> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Connie Yau <conniey@microsoft.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the input! I will add a Trait for the tests that have
> > > > > Timeouts for now so they can be fixed to be more stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more question... While migrating the code to xUnit, I noticed
> > that
> > > > > there are a lot of `static` variables in LuceneTestCase and which
> > > > > would make it hard to run in parallel because some test classes
> > modify
> > > > > the static values. Is there a reason for keeping them static?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Connie
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Laimonas Simutis [mailto:laimis@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:54 PM
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > >
> > > > > Wyatt is right on. Certain tests under random circumstances could
> get
> > > > > into a bad state and run "forever", potentially generate gigs of
> data
> > > > > on disk, etc and so timeout was added to abort the test earlier in
> > > > > case that happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our plan was to make a pass at those long running tests and fix the
> > > > > issues that cause them to run so long once we are fully complete
> with
> > > > the porting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you can add a category / trait on such tests in order to
> > avoid
> > > > > them until they can be properly investigated and underlying issues
> > > fixed?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Wyatt Barnett
> > > > > <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know the history on why the timeouts were added but
I
> > > > > > suspect they were self-defensive in nature. I think in most
cases
> > > > > > the timeouts are really back-stopping things so that if there
is
> a
> > > > > > race condition the test suite bails and fails rather than runs
> > > > > > forever. Is there a way to backstop stuff like that with xunit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:24 PM Connie Yau <
> conniey@microsoft.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been looking into migrating existing tests from NUnit
to
> > > > > > > xUnit and I think it's doable with the suggestions that
were
> > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > The only question I need answered from the community is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "How important are timeouts in your test cases?"
> > > > > > > - xUnit runs tests asynchronously and parallel, so they
removed
> > > > > > > the ability to have timeout because the ability to time
these
> > > > > > > tests are not reliable.
> > > > > > > - There are 4 timeouts that I see in the cases.
> > > > > > >         - int.MaxValue
> > > > > > >         - 5 minutes
> > > > > > >         - 2.5 minutes
> > > > > > >         - 40000 milliseconds
> > > > > > > My current approach to dealing with timeouts is removing
them
> > > > > > > because the tests run concurrently, so we aren’t waiting
for a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > test to finish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Connie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:26 PM
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our goal with the tests was to keep it working with the
> existing
> > > > > > > system with a few changes as possible.  We thought there
would
> be
> > > > > > > more changes than the community was comfortable with. 
However,
> > it
> > > > > > > sounds like the interest in xUnit is more that we realized.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are three items that concerned us in the xUnit move.
> > > > > > > 1.  No categories - Traits can be used instead.  Hopefully
just
> > > > > > > some simple cut and paste.
> > > > > > > 2.  No timeout for test cases - This is the biggest issue
as tc
> > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > frequently used in the test cases I saw.  We are not sure
the
> > > > > > > effect of this or how to overcome any issues related to
this.
> > > > > > > 3.  TeamCity integration - Looks like Wyatt found a good
> article
> > > > > > > explaining how to do this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps Connie can look into the first two issues and Wyatt
can
> > > > > > > look into the last one?  Connie will respond with an update
by
> > > > > > > tomorrow evening and then we can decide together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a sad note, I've been pulled off onto another project.
> Connie
> > > > > > > will take point on this project and finish up necessary
work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:12 AM
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response, I was off at the beach
last
> > > weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not a whole lot of seat-time w/ xunit here. In terms of
running
> > > > > > > it, there is a plugin, we can see if CodeBetter would be
> willing
> > > > > > > to install it. The hand-plumbed option doesn't seem to
daunting
> > > > either.
> > > > > > > In terms of
> > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > that is a better question but it seems like Xunit has a
> [Traits]
> > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > that could be used -- see
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fstac
> > > > > > ko
> > > > > > verflow.com
> > %2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-fi
> > > > > > lt
> > > > > >
> > > ered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > >
> > com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
> > > > > > 1d
> b47%7c1&sdata=SaJ%2b%2b5r2mjXE6s550uotyCpNxB9eTP5EH577DmSU8to%3d
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > an example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:49 AM Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > <itamar@code972.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "All these issues together lead us to the conclusion
that we
> > > > > > > > would be doing a disservice to just blindly port to
xUnit." -
> > > > > > > > why do you say that? if a move to xUnit benefits us
on
> multiple
> > > > > > > > occasions (better API, .NET Core support, faster runs)
this
> > > > > > > > one-tine effort would be
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > it - no?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wyatt, can you chime in perhaps - you have the most
> experience
> > > > > > > > getting the build system to run, and test categorisation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c93aa1f132
> > > > > > > > 28
> > > > > > > > a414
> > > > > > > >
> > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U
> > > > > > > > pe iUeT A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d |
@synhershko
> > > > > > > > <
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%
> > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > twit
> > > > > > > > ter.com
> > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > m%7c
> > > > > > > >
> > 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> > > > > > > > b4 7%7c
> > > > > > > > 1&sdata=kc%2fH3fEbR68ajKlN3pZ7vISmdPb%2bIRTHWrDTZ4FdplY%3d>
> > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer
and PMC
> > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
<
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all.  I have a quick update on our progress.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We did a test of what it would be like to port
Lucene.NET
> to
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > > As Itamer guessed, it is quite a bit of work.
 The basic
> work
> > > > > > > > > of renaming attributes and changing out package
names and
> the
> > > > > > > > > like is a little
> > > > > > > > tedious,
> > > > > > > > > but it is doable.  The issues comes in because
of the use
> of
> > > > > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > timeout attributes.  Creating categories in xUnit
is
> > possible,
> > > > > > > > > but rather complicated.  The bigger issue is
that my
> research
> > > > > > > > > indicated that
> > > > > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > > > only has basic integration with xUnit and you
have to run
> all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Running only categories requires extra scripting.
 The
> bigger
> > > > > > > > > issue was that there is no TimeOut attribute
in xUnit so
> > > > > > > > > longer running tests are
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > issue.  We would also have to re-arrange some
the test
> > fixture
> > > > > > > > > setup and teardown code into class constructors
and dispose
> > > > > > > > > methods, but that work was doable.  All these
issues
> together
> > > > > > > > > lead us to the conclusion that we would be doing
a
> disservice
> > > > > > > > > to just blindly port
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > nUnit has just release an alpha package that
runs on .NET
> > Core
> > > > RC2.
> > > > > > > > > Connie is looking into getting working this week
or next to
> > so
> > > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > the use of such features as testcase timeouts
and
> categories.
> > > > > > > > > We'll send an update when we've tried out the
alpha
> package.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's sounds everyone is favor of the move to
xUnit.  I've
> > > > > > > > > talked to a couple of my co-workers and they
said the
> > > > > > > > > conversion can be a little tedious, but often
worth the
> > > > > > > > > effort.  Give me a couple days to see if
> > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > a rabbits hole.  I'll respond back if its more
effort that
> I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > expend.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > > Regarding your last question.  There are no more
know tasks
> > > > > > > > > other than what I initially outlined.  Once I
merge
> Connie's
> > > > > > > > > change in from master
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will have a building/ported assembly.  I just
need to get
> the
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > to verify everything works as expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:46 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey there,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you so much again for your great work here.
Lots of
> > good
> > > > > > > > > contributions we could definitely use.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moving to xUnit.Net was actually on my list of
things to
> do -
> > > > > > > > > basically also because it's API is much better
and more
> > > > > > > > > flexible (and less buggy!) and my experience
with it was
> much
> > > > > > > > > better than with NUnit (which we use
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > outdated version of). Some people claim xUnit
is also
> faster,
> > > > > > > > > so hey
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you sure you can "easily move all tests to
xUnit"? From
> > > > > > > > > what I can tell this will be a rather rigorous
copy-paste
> > job?
> > > > > > > > > While the JavaCompatibility bits we have (
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/tree/master/src/Lucene.Net.T
> > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > tFra
> > > > > > > > mework/JavaCompatibility
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > do contain centralized function like assertTrue()
etc that
> > > > > > > > > save loads of time and effort porting tests,
so that could
> be
> > > > > > > > > changed easily to use xUnit, there are many places
where
> > > > > > > > > asserts etc where ported in full to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > NUnit API.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am definitely pro this change, but let's make
sure we
> don't
> > > > > > > > > go down
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > a rabbit hole first. Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With regards to the status update:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. I made some last minor comments on the merge
scheduler
> PR
> > -
> > > > > > > > > we should be able to merge it within a few days
now. Great
> > > > > > > > > work there
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. What is keeping us from merging your ICU etc
changes?
> > > > > > > > > please note some subprojects are absolutely necessary
for
> > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET to run on Core CLR as well - even
though they
> are
> > > > > > > > > "sub" projects and not part of the Lucene
> > > > > > > > core
> > > > > > > > > itself. Queries and Analysis are probably the
biggest ones
> > > > > > > > > (latter not fully ported yet, and it's the one
with the ICU
> > > dep).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Other than what you posted - are there any
other pending
> > > > > > > > > items to get this running on .NET Core?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152
> > > > > > > > df
> > > > > > > > d451
> > > > > > > >
> > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H
> > > > > > > > xE
> > > > > > > > 52%2 bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > > > > > > | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2
> > > > > > > > ft
> > > > > > > > witt
> > > > > > > > er.com
> > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.c
> > > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > > %7c4
> > > > > > > >
> > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db
> > > > > > > > 47
> > > > > > > > %7c1 &sdata=7iqRqwQwlcNbmwkckUjcS1MWjUPJi3cxLFfRdLc3BnQ%3d
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET
committer and
> PMC
> > > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Elizabeth Maher
(NEWMAN) <
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET Community,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Connie and I continue to make progress on
moving
> Lucene.NET
> > > > > > > > > > to .NET
> > > > > > > > Core.
> > > > > > > > > > The last challenge we face is to get the
tests to
> > > > > > > > > > successfully run on .NET Core.  Currently
the unit tests
> > use
> > > > > > > > > > NUnit.  There is a .NET Core version called
NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > However, the issue is there is some manual
steps to get
> > > > > > > > > > NUnitLite tests to work on
> > > > > .NET Core.
> > > > > > > > > > We would have to create console applications
for each of
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > test library, call the appropriate APIs
to create a test
> > > > > > > > > > results file and then work with the CI system
to manually
> > > > > > > > > > upload
> > > > > the results.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, there is not Test Runner integration
for NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > While, this is all possible to do, I would
like to
> propose
> > a
> > > > > > > > > > different change.  I could easily move all
the test to
> use
> > > > > > > > > > xUnit.  The would benefit Lucene.NET in
the long run as
> > > > > > > > > > there are both full fx<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c0
> > > > > > > > > > 1%
> > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > izab
> > > > > > > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba
> > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > > 988b
> > > > > > > > > >
> > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekB
> > > > > > > > > > p0
> > > > > > > > > > Dxan
> > > > > > > > > > w0WR
> > > > > > > > > > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01
> > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > c01%
> > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b5
> > > > > > > > > > 1e
> > > > > > > > > > ba%7
> > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQ
> > > > > > > > > > DT
> > > > > > > > > > qkpn
> > > > > > > > > > 0g%2 bu2XXHzE4pDZ0K%2fhU%3d> versions
of xUnit, there is
> a
> > > > > > > > > > TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&da
> > > > > > > > > > ta
> > > > > > > > > > =01%
> > > > > > > > > > 7c01
> > > > > > > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > > > > > > > > > 38
> > > > > > > > > > 0b51
> > > > > > > > > > eba%
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQ
> > > > > > > > > > iP q3Ss F3Eb v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>,
as well as the
> ability
> > > > > > > > > > to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-t
> > > > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > > > ts-v
> > > > > > > > > > s&da
> > > > > > > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd4
> > > > > > > > > > 51
> > > > > > > > > > ebb1
> > > > > > > > > > c08d
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f
> > > > > > > > > > 3X EmrU yKQu 8tdZtoghxSskpFBPP1N1YGxT7e45Vc%3d.>
> > > > > > > > > > I believe the long-term maintenance cost
for both full
> and
> > > > > > > > > > core fx tests would be lower using xUnit.
 Is this an
> > > > > > > > > > acceptable direction for me to take the
unit tests?
> Please
> > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > me know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Below is the progress of our migration work,
for the
> > curious.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1.       Remove use of SharpZipLib dependency
- completed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2.       Update ICU4NET dependency for .NET
Core -
> > completed
> > > in
> > > > > dev
> > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a.        In
> > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3.       Remove Appache.NMS dependency -
completed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4.       Move Scheduler to use Tasks - PR
submitted
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a.        Pull request at
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/171
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5.       Make portable libraries to build
.NET Core
> > binaries
> > > -
> > > > > > > > completed
> > > > > > > > > > in dev branch
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a.        In
> > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 6.       Verify tests pass on both full
framework and
> .Net
> > > > Core.
> > > > > -
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > progress
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a.        Need to get tests to run on .NET
Core.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message