What's Needed for NUnitLite 1.0

[Charlie Poole]

Hi All,

I'm working toward a 1.0 release of NUnitLite and could use your help.

What additional features do you think we need in order to call it a
full 1.0 release? Should additional platforms be supported?

Let me know by posting here and / or filing a bug request at
http://bugs.launchpad.net/nunitlite.

Charlie

[Tyrel Alastair Hunter]

Multi threaded test execution

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NUnitLite" group.
> To post to this group, send email to nuni...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nunitlite+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nunitlite?hl=en.
>

[Alan McGovern]

This may not be the right place, but I'd love built in support for providing progress updates to applications which execute unitlite based tests. For example if there was built in support for taking a port as a parameter which the test runner connects to and writes basic information like total tests, current test, name of test and status after execution:

[5/250] Started: Full.Type.Name.Method

[5/250] Completed: Full.Type.Name.Method [Successful|Failed|Inconclusive|Whatever]

[6/250] Started: Full.Type.Name.OtherMethod

[6/250] Completed: Full.Type.Name.OtherMethod [Successful|Failed|Inconclusive|Whatever]

I'll be adding this to my own test runner, but if there was a single implementation upstream that would be awesome.

Alan

[Charlie Poole]

Hi Alan,

This is definitely the right place! Also, feel free to use the nunit-discuss group, particularly now that NUnit and NUnitLite are converging.

The underlying idea of NUnitLite was that it would be standalone - not requiring any external runner in order to use it.

That said, I can understand the desire to use NUnitLite in order to execute tests. It's much more compact and has a more modern architecture than the NUnit framework itself. The single assembly already knows how to execute tests and return results, while the NUnit framework requires use of at least three other NUnit assemblies in order to run a test. This difference comes from the fact that NUnitLite already uses the architecture of the NUnit framework version 3.0, which has not yet been released.

Currently, NUnitLite implements the ITestListener interface, which looks like this:

public interface ITestListener
{

    void TestStarted(ITest test);

    void TestFinished(ITestResult result);

    void TestOutput(TestOutput testOutput);

}

It should be relatively easy for you to develop a wrapper for NUnitLite, which implements these methods and passes the necessary info through a port. NUnit 3.0 will eventually do this for you, using an XML representation of the information, so it may make sense to use the same approach yourself. Take a look at the source for nunit-3.0 for some guidance. If I were doing it, I would create the wrapper object as part of my tests, since NUnitLite tests are in the form of an executable anyway. Just derive a class from TextUI and send the output wherever you like.

BTW, I'm shocked to see how old this thread is. I really need to get out a 1.0 version soon, so I'll rephrase the original question for anyone reading and I'll also ask it on nunit-discuss...

   What is the MINIMAL feature set needed to take NUnitLite out of beta and call it 1.0?

I ask it this way because I'd really like to get entirely focused on the next version of NUnitLite, which will be called 3.0 to match NUnit.

Charlie

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nunitlite+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to nuni...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nunitlite.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.