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: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:51:32 PM To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf > of Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:28:54 AM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:52 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:54 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > 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 > > > <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:26 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:12 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > 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 > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > 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) < > > > > > > [email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:40 PM > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > 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: [email protected] > > > > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > > On > > > > > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:46 AM > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > 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) < > > > > > > > [email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
