nunit / nunit3-vs-adapter

NUnit 3.0 Visual Studio test adapter for use under VS 2012 or later
https://nunit.org
MIT License
202 stars 104 forks source link

Microsoft Testing Platform for NUnit #1152

Closed Evangelink closed 2 months ago

Evangelink commented 5 months ago

Dear NUnit team,

As per our previous discussions, we would like to help you onboard NUnit to the new self-contained testing platform that powers MSTest Runner.

We are currently working on the technical documentation for framework authors and extensions authors so sadly for now there isn't much available for you to browse.

The new platform is already OSS and available inside of MSTest repository (at the moment).

Related issue about support NUnit on MSTest repo: https://github.com/microsoft/testfx/issues/2164

MSTest runner blogpost announcement: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-ms-test-runner/ MSTest runner doc: https://learn.microsoft.com/dotnet/core/testing/unit-testing-mstest-runner-intro?tabs=dotnetcli Platform code: https://github.com/microsoft/testfx/tree/main/src/Platform/Microsoft.Testing.Platform Sample code: https://github.com/microsoft/testfx/tree/main/samples/mstest-runner NUnit Samples: https://github.com/nunit/nunit3-vs-adapter.issues/tree/master/Issue1152

OsirisTerje commented 4 months ago

From @Evangelink

@OsirisTerje @SeanKilleen How do you guys want me to move on this PR? Not sure if you prefer to discuss on the PR or ticket.

Are you happy with having the new platform has optional disabled by default on the same nuget package or would you like to have a different package with maybe the runner enabled by default?

If we move on with a flag to enable, how do you want to name it (current draft uses EnableNUnitRunner)?

Not for now but for some future, I'd be happy to start seeing the "VS" part going away (maybe if/when we are able to drop support from VSTest and focus only on the new platform). We are really trying to have the new platform felt more as a dotnet tooling/sdk concept rather than a VS centric feature.

The adapter could stay as it is. A possible way for a proper (non-bridge) platform runner could be to use the NUnitLite runner and adapt that to return the new protocol.

BTW if that's any easier, I'd be happy to setup some call with you (hopefully we have some common timezone time :)) so we can discuss how we can help you.

A call could be nice. @mikkelbu and I are CET, @sean is in EST. @stevenaw is also same but @manfred-brands is AWST. There is only two non-night time hour in common, CET 12-14 = EST 7-9 AM = AWST 20-22.
If @rprouse and @jnm2 wants to join, they are also on EST.