Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NUnit 3.0 Support #1087

Closed
rdbartram opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 7 comments · Fixed by #2208
Closed

NUnit 3.0 Support #1087

rdbartram opened this issue Aug 8, 2018 · 7 comments · Fixed by #2208
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@rdbartram
Copy link

1. Description

I would like to bring in support for NUnit 3.0 among other reasons, I just wrote the whole thing to extend the Export-NUnitReport cmdlet to include properties and output fields. I noticed after writing that that we are currently NUnit 2.5 compliant and that means I can't include the output property

3. Expected Behavior

should be able to export NUnit 3.0 report

4.Current Behavior

Only exports NUnit 2.5

5. Possible Solution

I can rewrite the testresults.ps1 to either replace support for 2.5 with 3.0 or we provide a parameter somewhere for the user to choose.

Have a solution in mind?

https://github.com/rdbartram/pester/

6. Context

After the test file has been uploaded in VSTS it is easier troubleshoot when more information is saved in the test file.

@nohwnd
Copy link
Member

nohwnd commented Aug 10, 2018

That would be nice. The OutputFormat allows the user to choose the output format, to be used, please add NUnitXML30 and implement your changes.

@rdbartram
Copy link
Author

Understood. I'll start working on it

@nohwnd
Copy link
Member

nohwnd commented Dec 14, 2018

@rdbartram Are you still interested in doing this?

@nohwnd
Copy link
Member

nohwnd commented Dec 14, 2018

Related #301

@nohwnd
Copy link
Member

nohwnd commented Dec 16, 2018

This migration should also address the problem raised in #1083 , should the fail be reported with Failed or Failure?

@rdbartram
Copy link
Author

I had this as part of my TestCase Output PR but then removed it for separation of concern. As soon as I get the other PR in and I know that I can get a PR into pester, I'll create the next one. The code is still on my machine working internally

@nohwnd
Copy link
Member

nohwnd commented Jan 9, 2019

@rdbartram it's still unclear to me how to do the testcases properly, that's why it's still not merged. If you already have the code for this issue, could you PR that? /cc @davinci26

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants