Surok112 / robotframework-maven-plugin

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/robotframework-maven-plugin
0 stars 0 forks source link

noncritical tests shown as failed in xunit report #12

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
noncritical tests are written also as failures in xunit output and this causes 
further tooling to determine the test completely failed even when none of the 
critical test were failing.

I suggest that these tests are written (optionally) as skipped instead if 
that's not used already for other purposes. skipped tag seems to have type 
field that I think junit uses to output the reason declared @Ignore annotation. 
Maybe that could be used to refer to the tag(s) that caused the test to be 
noncritical in the first place. I can't find a proper way to present the 
error/failure message, but at least I can live without it since error logs 
contain it as well.

--
Tuomas

Original issue reported on code.google.com by TuomasKi...@gmail.com on 31 May 2011 at 8:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
The XUnit output is not written by the Maven plugin. It is written by Robot 
Framework itself, and if this issue is still valid, it should be reported to 
RF's own tracker.

Closing as invalid.

Original comment by janne.t....@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 5:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Turns out I was wrong :)

Maven plugin creates it's own xunit output. 

I'll have to see whether it would make sense to always use the one created by 
RF instead, changing the scope of this issue somewhat.

Re-opening.

Original comment by janne.t....@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 5:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
And yet another twist in the tale. (Yes, reading through *all* the relevant 
code would be a good idea before making assertions.)

In normal execution, the maven plugin does not create xunit XML, instead it 
relies on the one created by RF. This means that if this is fixed, it needs to 
be fixed in RF itself.

Closing this, the note about re-creating this in RF tracker still applies.

Original comment by janne.t....@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 2:54