search

shekharpro / mb-unit

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/mb-unit
0 stars 0 forks source link

gallio.echo Text report type contains some XML #439

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Run gallio.echo using /rt:text

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

When a test fails you see something like:
[Test] MbUnit
v1.0.2700.29885/Viewer.UnitTests/ViewerGlobalTests/GeneratePassword_2
  <Stream: Failures>
    <Section: Exception>
      MbUnit.Core.Exceptions.AssertionException: The two objects were not
expected to be the same
         at UnitTests.Business.ViewerGlobalTests.GeneratePassword_2() in
C:\dump\ViewerGlobalTests.cs:line 195
    <End Section>
  <End Stream>

I would expect it to be formatted in a "text file style" instead of an XML
style such as.
[Test] foo
Exception: blarg
etc..

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Gallio Echo - Version 3.0.6 build 763, Windows XP SP2

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 4 May 2009 at 2:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Well, it's not really XML per se, it's just a question of the way it gets 
rendered. 
Basically we need a way to pretty-print hierarchically structured test log 
output.

Can you suggest a better presentation format that would somehow differentiate 
among
test log streams ("Warnings", "Failures", "Log", "Console Output", "Debug 
Trace",
etc.) and that would also be able to display section headings ("Exception",
"Assertion Failure", etc.)?

I would love to improve the presentation.  I just didn't have any good ideas at 
the time!

Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com on 13 May 2009 at 6:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
OPTION #1

Test:     MbUnit v1.0.2700.29885/Viewer.UnitTests/GeneratePassword_2
Failures: MbUnit.Core.Exceptions.AssertionException - The two objects were
          not expected to be the same at UnitTests.Business.GeneratePassword_2() in
          C:\dump\ViewerGlobalTests.cs:line 195

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2009 at 1:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
OPTION #2

[Test]
MbUnit v1.0.2700.29885/Viewer.UnitTests/GeneratePassword_2

[Failures / MbUnit.Core.Exceptions.AssertionException]
The two objects were not expected to be the same at 
UnitTests.Business.GenPassword_2()
in C:\dump\ViewerGlobalTests.cs:line 195

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2009 at 1:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
OPTION #3
(Test : Stream / Header\nDetails)

MbUnit v1.0.2700.29885/GeneratePassword_2 : Failures / AssertionException
The two objects were not expected to be the same at
UnitTests.Business.GeneratePassword_2()
in C:\dump\ViewerGlobalTests.cs:line 195

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2009 at 1:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Graham,
Since you just looked into creating a condensed text report could you perhaps 
work on
improving the report format somewhat?

I like Option #1 although it may be difficult to format the columns properly.  
Let me
propose Option #4: drop the stream names altogether in the text report, they're
probably not all that useful anyways.  Also, instead of grouping tests by 
pass/fail
just show a leading indicator derived from the test outcome, then write out the
contents of the log streams concatenated together with each section indented and
separated by a blank line.

[failed] MbUnit v1.0.2700.29885/Viewer.UnitTests/GeneratePassword_2

  MbUnit.Core.Exceptions.AssertionException
    The two objects were not expected to be the same at
UnitTests.Business.GenPassword_2()
    in C:\dump\ViewerGlobalTests.cs:line 195

Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com on 16 Jun 2009 at 7:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I think it's very important that we keep the tests grouped by pass/fail (fail 
1st). 
Not doing so would really make the report much harder to read and to get the 
info you
really want (ie what failed?!)

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 6:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
hecktarzuli,
Is that still an issue if we have a text-condensed report that only shows 
failures?

Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 7:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 8:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Having a text-condensed report that only shows failures would be good.

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 9:26

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I've made some improvements to the layout mostly by omitting non-essential
information.  Let me know what you think in v3.1.

Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com on 31 Jul 2009 at 4:20

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I'll watch for it.  Thanks Jeff.  BTW, congrats on the Google Gig.

Original comment by hecktarz...@gmail.com on 7 Aug 2009 at 3:27