lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Connie Yau <conn...@microsoft.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:28:13 GMT
Hi Itamar,


Thanks for looking it over! :) I reviewed your comments and made the changes.


In regards to commenting out some RandomIndexWriter constructors, I understand that you are
trying to decrease the number of discrepancies between Java version and Lucene.NET.  The reason
I had removed them was because LuceneTestCase.NewIndexWriterConfig method is no longer static.
It depends on the non-static variable ClassEnvRule, more specifically ClassEnvRule.Similarity
and ClassEnvRule.TimeZone.


The other constructors I commented out were making it one line easier to get a RandomIndexWriter.
 All the test classes inherit from LuceneTestCase, so they would be able to call the non-static
NewIndexWriterConfig and pass that to the RandomIndexWriter.


An alternative is to add a static overload that takes Similarity and Timezone and add those
parameters to RandomIndexWriter. I have a branch here you can compare: https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/compare/staticLuceneTestCase...conniey:addRandomIndexWriterCtorsBack


Any other suggestions are welcome!


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: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:51:32 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core

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
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=TpMbL%2bu6EDkYOmLshr7%2bfvOAQN8q04GiRFtaCLy1oRU%3d
| @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=rMDcfWPS%2fjaIdldnkIwLBjzqeg4asimJ%2ffnfpiIvCCk%3d>
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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2faka.ms%2fweboutlook&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=O59qzUcLXD8h1I5nQW5veABH35eiGHdlE3Yld5xJb9o%3d>
>
> ________________________________
> 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