Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by grahamr...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2009 at 9:58
Original comment by grahamr...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2009 at 9:58
I've implemented this as an options page, which means the settings would be
stored
per-user rather than per-project. Then I re-read the issue, and you mentioned
having
it at the project level, so I started implementing that. And then I started
thinking
about it too much. :)
What would be more useful to you? Do you want this information to be stored
with the
project? Or would it be better as a user setting? (Or maybe even both?).
Original comment by grahamr...@gmail.com
on 19 Apr 2009 at 9:36
My usual use-case scenario is as follows:
I maintain a .gallio project file with my solution. This is in the repository
and
serves as the execution target for automated builds (CC.Net). On my dev box, I
run
Gallio mostly through ReSharper directly in Visual Studio - the .gallio project
file
serves mainly as a project-specific target for CI builds.
(Note: The actual extension that I have in mind collects and displays
performance
data (which is not relevant during actual development anyway).)
So, storing the setting in the .gallio file on project level (not user, this
could
lead to inconsistent results when invoking the project file during a CI build)
would
be fine for me.
I imagine another input box for Icarus' project properties tab...
This way, it would not be possible to invoke the extension through ReSharper,
but
that would be ok for me/now. If I'd really need to run an extension, I could
always
do it through Icarus.
Regards
Thomas
Original comment by thomaswe...@googlemail.com
on 20 Apr 2009 at 7:59
OK, now you can add test runner extensions at the user (.settings) or the
project
(.gallio) level. How are you running CI builds, with Echo?
Original comment by grahamr...@gmail.com
on 24 Apr 2009 at 7:05
Thanks very much for the fast work!
I run CI builds through the NCover2 MSBuild task, which receives a command line
for
Gallio.Echo.exe as an argument. - I have to do it this rather complicated way
because my dev box is 32bit, but my CI server is 64bit. So I need a way to
provide
the x86-version of Gallio.Host.exe as an argument for CI builds.
Regards
Thomas
Original comment by thomaswe...@googlemail.com
on 25 Apr 2009 at 7:55
I'd better fix Echo to take note of the addition to project files then!
Original comment by grahamr...@gmail.com
on 25 Apr 2009 at 2:07
Thx!
It took me 3 days to figure this 32/64bit story out. But once you know it it's
just
a matter of copy/paste. Now it works like a charm, and as a side effect I can
be
sure that my newly developed assemblies do work on both 32bit and 64bit as
expected.
Regards
Thomas
Original comment by thomaswe...@googlemail.com
on 25 Apr 2009 at 6:15
I'm not sure I understand why you have to provide a 32bit version of
Gallio.Host.exe
to NCover v2. If there are test assemblies that must be run 32bit then you can
compile them with the "x86" flag and Gallio will detect the fact that it must
use a
32bit host automatically.
The preferred way to run with NCover v2 is to specify the NCover2 runner type.
You
can also pass in additional arguments for NCover as runner options. This
feature is
new in v3.0.6 and is described in the release notes.
Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com
on 25 Apr 2009 at 6:40
Ok then, I didn't work that out with 3.0.6, but with 3.0.5. And I wasn't able
to make
NCover run without explicitely specifying the x86 host AND compiling the
assemblies
to x86 (I think this is because NCover requires the host to be explicitely
specified). Can't remember the details anymore, in the end I was happy to have
it
all running, and I didn't investigate all the details...
So if I can use the Gallio task with the runner type set to NCover2 now this
will be
a great help. It will make the build script much clearer (and shorter).
Thanks for the hint. I will definitely try this.
Regards
Thomas
Original comment by thomaswe...@googlemail.com
on 26 Apr 2009 at 8:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
thomaswe...@googlemail.com
on 17 Apr 2009 at 11:12