> Such an assembly is not shown as a failure, but as "NotRunnable". [...] > It may also > be an issue that we use the same icon for it as for a test failure. [...]
Hi Charlie, that was my point, that it is shown in the tree display with the failure icon (or, if you prefer, with the same icon as used for failures). I did discover from its properties window that it is NotRunnable with no TestFixtures, but it was the use of the failure icon in the tree display itself that I was raising the issue for. (I also noted that the tree parent is also given the failure icon, though I don't know if you consider it unfortunate that its properties window does not give any indication that the cause is due to a NotRunnable child assembly.) The user can discover/see that that the node is test-free, since it is not expandable, but I accept that it might be desirable to visually distinguish test-free assemblies from assemblies with tests that succeed in the tree display. But, personally, I don't think it is desirable to make test-free assemblies visually equivalent to assemblies with tests that fail in the tree display. One is "hmmm, we have no tests for this bit, but we should get some" and one is "argh! we can't release this!! fire-fight!!!" I guess choices might be: - use a new icon specifically for the purpose - use the existing question-mark icon - give the user the option to suppress the labelling of a test-free assembly with a non-success icon > I'm interested in knowing what > process you use to generate new project files when you add a new assembly. > Can't you simply filter out those with no tests at that point? Well, the easiest solution for us is to just manually add all of our existing Visual Studio projects' assemblies to the single new NUnit project. That way, as team members add tests, we don't have to do anything to the NUnit project. We don't expect to add many new Visual Studio projects, but we do expect to add many new tests, in a gradual process. We want to avoid the situation whereby someone adds tests but forgets to make sure the corresponding assembly is part of the NUnit project's configurations (Debug/Release). Does that answer your question? Is that a reasonable use case? Thanks, Simon. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/711330 Title: Test-free assembly given failure icon in tree display Status in NUnit V2 Test Framework: New Bug description: A test-free assembly is shown with the failure icon, ie, an X with red background, in the GUI runner tree display, as is its parent(s). However, the progress bar is green, as expected (assuming all other tests pass). Why would we want to include a test-free assembly? Because we want to create a single NUnit project for an existing large solution (40+ Visual Studio projects) containing all of its assemblies and executables. As we progressively add new tests to our product, we want NUnit to automatically pick them up without anyone having to remember to make sure the corresponding assembly/executable have been added to the NUnit project (and Debug/Release configurations). It is off-putting (to say the least) and misleading for NUnit label such test-free assemblies as failures in the tree display. It also contradicts what NUnit reports in the rest of the GUI (and when the NUnit project is run with the console runner). So, I think NUnit should not show test-free assemblies as failures in the tree display. I think they should count as a success, ie, shown with a check with green background. Thanks. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-core Post to : nunit-core@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nunit-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
