You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com> on 2016/08/04 18:52:52 UTC
Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Hi Itamar,
I created a new PR to address the concerns you have and have opted to add to the existing ctors rather than remove them. I think this will make it easier to merge in new changes.
https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/177
Thanks!
Connie
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
________________________________
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com <it...@gmail.com> on behalf of Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:37:44 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Awesome, thanks Wyatt.
Connie, let's go with whatever approach that will allow us touch as few
files as possible. https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172 touches an
awful lot of files - so if adding back those constructors can help with
that let's go for it.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=VdCSUl8OTrd9dBpigKpuJOWt%2bd2fGnK5rQkFJrXlOIc%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ns64cpE%2fsYvbhQLaXmAcRJAx9BQguO3aZ17kVvd%2fI1I%3d>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sure thing Itamar.
>
> Any PR will build automatically the way we are setup. The key is the github
> pull request ID -- 172 in this case. Heading on down to our teamcity
> project at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fteamcity.codebetter.com%2fproject.html%3fprojectId%3dLuceneNet&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=8kRAMqw8i96mLGimaXQpG3MMMcB8HY%2bHkd0F%2bdq7rjY%3d
> clicking
> on any of the blue 172s will get the build for that segment of that branch.
> Note that projects unaffected by your changes will not have the branch so
> don't be alarmed if you don't see builds in Lucene.Net.Analysis for
> example.
>
> A direct link to the core build for this PR is
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fteamcity.codebetter.com%2fviewType.html%3fbuildTypeId%3dLuceneNet_Core%26branch_LuceneNet%3d172%26tab%3dbuildTypeStatusDiv&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U5BEzqRyQGKrsh7O4tA8v0q5t0U65y%2fWHOWPetvE3yg%3d
>
>
> Let me know if you've got further questions.
>
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:51 PM Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I reviewed your PR - looks mostly good, left a few comments there.
> >
> > Wyatt - can you help Connie with running her branch on the CI?
> >
> > WRT the usage of a seed - yes, we would want to support this, but that's
> > not a trivial task because we need to integrate with the test runner and
> > get a seed from the randomized runner. This is something we will tackle
> > later.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=VdCSUl8OTrd9dBpigKpuJOWt%2bd2fGnK5rQkFJrXlOIc%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ns64cpE%2fsYvbhQLaXmAcRJAx9BQguO3aZ17kVvd%2fI1I%3d>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've taken a first step in creating a PR to limit the use of static
> > > variables/methods so that they can be used asynchronously and in
> parallel
> > > when we transition to xUnit.
> > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172
> > >
> > > My next PR would be to actually use xUnit in the LuceneTestCases. I
> have
> > a
> > > branch almost ready. Would I be able to work with someone to make sure
> > > these work in master in your CI builds? Or should Ikeep the changes to
> > > xUnit in Lucene.NET Core branch?
> > >
> > >
> > > I had a hard time comparing my test results from the existing master
> > > branch to my changes because of the use of static new Random() in
> > > LuceneTestCase. Eventually I had to use a seed to get consistent
> > results.
> > > Are there any plans to use a seed? I noticed there was a TODO here
> > (_random
> > > = new Random(/* LUCENENET TODO seed */)).
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Connie
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from Outlook<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2faka.ms%2fweboutlook&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=RZQLfuAyy%2bYJSTnkBqSAQl%2byEr0YMz0jJQf8eg%2bIjQA%3d>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com <it...@gmail.com> on
> > behalf
> > > of Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:28:54 AM
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > >
> > > I don't have an easy answer then. The obvious answer would be to change
> > > this to a Config object that's passed around or similar - or make them
> > > immutable and somehow change that config in the test configuration. A
> > good
> > > place to start is to track the usage, and confirm the intended usage
> > > pattern with the Java codebase just in case.
> > >
> > > About both issues, timeouts and mutable configs - I trust your good
> > > judgment here. What's important is faster running and more stable
> tests,
> > we
> > > can skip Java compatiblilty in the testsframework as long as it's
> > > documented and gives us large benefits.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Jq49Nz%2bncnMPchpLuQ68SimD%2fm6Ea9XMH0GwBb6%2fuy8%3d
> > > | @synhershko <
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=VUl%2bR410%2bKQ5An8pAvc%2f5E5niSbckAR9s21ZtrGCzVg%3d
> > > >
> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, all of the statics are mutable. And some of the test cases make
> > use
> > > > of this... An example is: OLD_FORMAT_IMPERSONATION_IS_ACTIVE. The
> old
> > > > codec tests modify this field from true/false.
> > > >
> > > > About the Timeout issue, I like Laimonas' suggestion to use a Trait
> to
> > > > ignore running this specific tests until they've been properly
> > > > investigated. Brad points out in this issue that there is no way to
> > > > accurate way to measure Timeouts because of the parallization in
> xUnit
> > (
> > > > https://github.com/xunit/xunit/issues/217).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Connie
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:
> itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > On
> > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:52 PM
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > >
> > > > I believe the statics are remnants of the Lucene Java port, and
> mostly
> > > > readonly configurations. Are any of those statics mutable?
> > > >
> > > > Adding on the timeout thing - this indeed was a precaution. We should
> > > > probably move from a attribute-based timeout to throwing a
> > > TimeoutException
> > > > from the main test method, having the main loop check for the time
> > passed
> > > > since start and throw if it's above the timeout configured?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=RfcfWtLeiAc%2b3JDIALSdcDTae5%2bA7PwdVbVQAAU%2fh1U%3d
> > > > | @synhershko <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=%2fqmKXKltLCaz%2bpDdzAPJRhKlv5hRojyT41IydWUFD9o%3d
> > > > >
> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the input! I will add a Trait for the tests that have
> > > > > Timeouts for now so they can be fixed to be more stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > One more question... While migrating the code to xUnit, I noticed
> > that
> > > > > there are a lot of `static` variables in LuceneTestCase and which
> > > > > would make it hard to run in parallel because some test classes
> > modify
> > > > > the static values. Is there a reason for keeping them static?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Connie
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Laimonas Simutis [mailto:laimis@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:54 PM
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > >
> > > > > Wyatt is right on. Certain tests under random circumstances could
> get
> > > > > into a bad state and run "forever", potentially generate gigs of
> data
> > > > > on disk, etc and so timeout was added to abort the test earlier in
> > > > > case that happened.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our plan was to make a pass at those long running tests and fix the
> > > > > issues that cause them to run so long once we are fully complete
> with
> > > > the porting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you can add a category / trait on such tests in order to
> > avoid
> > > > > them until they can be properly investigated and underlying issues
> > > fixed?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Wyatt Barnett
> > > > > <wy...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know the history on why the timeouts were added but I
> > > > > > suspect they were self-defensive in nature. I think in most cases
> > > > > > the timeouts are really back-stopping things so that if there is
> a
> > > > > > race condition the test suite bails and fails rather than runs
> > > > > > forever. Is there a way to backstop stuff like that with xunit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:24 PM Connie Yau <
> conniey@microsoft.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've been looking into migrating existing tests from NUnit to
> > > > > > > xUnit and I think it's doable with the suggestions that were
> > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > The only question I need answered from the community is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "How important are timeouts in your test cases?"
> > > > > > > - xUnit runs tests asynchronously and parallel, so they removed
> > > > > > > the ability to have timeout because the ability to time these
> > > > > > > tests are not reliable.
> > > > > > > - There are 4 timeouts that I see in the cases.
> > > > > > > - int.MaxValue
> > > > > > > - 5 minutes
> > > > > > > - 2.5 minutes
> > > > > > > - 40000 milliseconds
> > > > > > > My current approach to dealing with timeouts is removing them
> > > > > > > because the tests run concurrently, so we aren’t waiting for a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > test to finish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Connie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:26 PM
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Our goal with the tests was to keep it working with the
> existing
> > > > > > > system with a few changes as possible. We thought there would
> be
> > > > > > > more changes than the community was comfortable with. However,
> > it
> > > > > > > sounds like the interest in xUnit is more that we realized.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are three items that concerned us in the xUnit move.
> > > > > > > 1. No categories - Traits can be used instead. Hopefully just
> > > > > > > some simple cut and paste.
> > > > > > > 2. No timeout for test cases - This is the biggest issue as tc
> > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > frequently used in the test cases I saw. We are not sure the
> > > > > > > effect of this or how to overcome any issues related to this.
> > > > > > > 3. TeamCity integration - Looks like Wyatt found a good
> article
> > > > > > > explaining how to do this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps Connie can look into the first two issues and Wyatt can
> > > > > > > look into the last one? Connie will respond with an update by
> > > > > > > tomorrow evening and then we can decide together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a sad note, I've been pulled off onto another project.
> Connie
> > > > > > > will take point on this project and finish up necessary work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:12 AM
> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response, I was off at the beach last
> > > weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not a whole lot of seat-time w/ xunit here. In terms of running
> > > > > > > it, there is a plugin, we can see if CodeBetter would be
> willing
> > > > > > > to install it. The hand-plumbed option doesn't seem to daunting
> > > > either.
> > > > > > > In terms of
> > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > that is a better question but it seems like Xunit has a
> [Traits]
> > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > that could be used -- see
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fstac
> > > > > > ko
> > > > > > verflow.com
> > %2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-fi
> > > > > > lt
> > > > > >
> > > ered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > >
> > com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
> > > > > > 1d
> b47%7c1&sdata=SaJ%2b%2b5r2mjXE6s550uotyCpNxB9eTP5EH577DmSU8to%3d
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > an example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:49 AM Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > <it...@code972.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "All these issues together lead us to the conclusion that we
> > > > > > > > would be doing a disservice to just blindly port to xUnit." -
> > > > > > > > why do you say that? if a move to xUnit benefits us on
> multiple
> > > > > > > > occasions (better API, .NET Core support, faster runs) this
> > > > > > > > one-tine effort would be
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > it - no?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wyatt, can you chime in perhaps - you have the most
> experience
> > > > > > > > getting the build system to run, and test categorisation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c93aa1f132
> > > > > > > > 28
> > > > > > > > a414
> > > > > > > >
> > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U
> > > > > > > > pe iUeT A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d | @synhershko
> > > > > > > > <
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%
> > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > twit
> > > > > > > > ter.com
> > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > m%7c
> > > > > > > >
> > 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> > > > > > > > b4 7%7c
> > > > > > > > 1&sdata=kc%2fH3fEbR68ajKlN3pZ7vISmdPb%2bIRTHWrDTZ4FdplY%3d>
> > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC
> > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN) <
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all. I have a quick update on our progress.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We did a test of what it would be like to port Lucene.NET
> to
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > > As Itamer guessed, it is quite a bit of work. The basic
> work
> > > > > > > > > of renaming attributes and changing out package names and
> the
> > > > > > > > > like is a little
> > > > > > > > tedious,
> > > > > > > > > but it is doable. The issues comes in because of the use
> of
> > > > > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > timeout attributes. Creating categories in xUnit is
> > possible,
> > > > > > > > > but rather complicated. The bigger issue is that my
> research
> > > > > > > > > indicated that
> > > > > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > > > only has basic integration with xUnit and you have to run
> all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > Running only categories requires extra scripting. The
> bigger
> > > > > > > > > issue was that there is no TimeOut attribute in xUnit so
> > > > > > > > > longer running tests are
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > issue. We would also have to re-arrange some the test
> > fixture
> > > > > > > > > setup and teardown code into class constructors and dispose
> > > > > > > > > methods, but that work was doable. All these issues
> together
> > > > > > > > > lead us to the conclusion that we would be doing a
> disservice
> > > > > > > > > to just blindly port
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > nUnit has just release an alpha package that runs on .NET
> > Core
> > > > RC2.
> > > > > > > > > Connie is looking into getting working this week or next to
> > so
> > > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > the use of such features as testcase timeouts and
> categories.
> > > > > > > > > We'll send an update when we've tried out the alpha
> package.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's sounds everyone is favor of the move to xUnit. I've
> > > > > > > > > talked to a couple of my co-workers and they said the
> > > > > > > > > conversion can be a little tedious, but often worth the
> > > > > > > > > effort. Give me a couple days to see if
> > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > a rabbits hole. I'll respond back if its more effort that
> I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > expend.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > > Regarding your last question. There are no more know tasks
> > > > > > > > > other than what I initially outlined. Once I merge
> Connie's
> > > > > > > > > change in from master
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will have a building/ported assembly. I just need to get
> the
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > to verify everything works as expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:46 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey there,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you so much again for your great work here. Lots of
> > good
> > > > > > > > > contributions we could definitely use.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moving to xUnit.Net was actually on my list of things to
> do -
> > > > > > > > > basically also because it's API is much better and more
> > > > > > > > > flexible (and less buggy!) and my experience with it was
> much
> > > > > > > > > better than with NUnit (which we use
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > outdated version of). Some people claim xUnit is also
> faster,
> > > > > > > > > so hey
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you sure you can "easily move all tests to xUnit"? From
> > > > > > > > > what I can tell this will be a rather rigorous copy-paste
> > job?
> > > > > > > > > While the JavaCompatibility bits we have (
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/tree/master/src/Lucene.Net.T
> > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > tFra
> > > > > > > > mework/JavaCompatibility
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > do contain centralized function like assertTrue() etc that
> > > > > > > > > save loads of time and effort porting tests, so that could
> be
> > > > > > > > > changed easily to use xUnit, there are many places where
> > > > > > > > > asserts etc where ported in full to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > NUnit API.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am definitely pro this change, but let's make sure we
> don't
> > > > > > > > > go down
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > a rabbit hole first. Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With regards to the status update:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. I made some last minor comments on the merge scheduler
> PR
> > -
> > > > > > > > > we should be able to merge it within a few days now. Great
> > > > > > > > > work there
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. What is keeping us from merging your ICU etc changes?
> > > > > > > > > please note some subprojects are absolutely necessary for
> > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET to run on Core CLR as well - even though they
> are
> > > > > > > > > "sub" projects and not part of the Lucene
> > > > > > > > core
> > > > > > > > > itself. Queries and Analysis are probably the biggest ones
> > > > > > > > > (latter not fully ported yet, and it's the one with the ICU
> > > dep).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Other than what you posted - are there any other pending
> > > > > > > > > items to get this running on .NET Core?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152
> > > > > > > > df
> > > > > > > > d451
> > > > > > > >
> > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H
> > > > > > > > xE
> > > > > > > > 52%2 bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > > > > > > | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2
> > > > > > > > ft
> > > > > > > > witt
> > > > > > > > er.com
> > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.c
> > > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > > %7c4
> > > > > > > >
> > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db
> > > > > > > > 47
> > > > > > > > %7c1 &sdata=7iqRqwQwlcNbmwkckUjcS1MWjUPJi3cxLFfRdLc3BnQ%3d
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and
> PMC
> > > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN) <
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET Community,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Connie and I continue to make progress on moving
> Lucene.NET
> > > > > > > > > > to .NET
> > > > > > > > Core.
> > > > > > > > > > The last challenge we face is to get the tests to
> > > > > > > > > > successfully run on .NET Core. Currently the unit tests
> > use
> > > > > > > > > > NUnit. There is a .NET Core version called NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > However, the issue is there is some manual steps to get
> > > > > > > > > > NUnitLite tests to work on
> > > > > .NET Core.
> > > > > > > > > > We would have to create console applications for each of
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > test library, call the appropriate APIs to create a test
> > > > > > > > > > results file and then work with the CI system to manually
> > > > > > > > > > upload
> > > > > the results.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, there is not Test Runner integration for NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > While, this is all possible to do, I would like to
> propose
> > a
> > > > > > > > > > different change. I could easily move all the test to
> use
> > > > > > > > > > xUnit. The would benefit Lucene.NET in the long run as
> > > > > > > > > > there are both full fx<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c0
> > > > > > > > > > 1%
> > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > izab
> > > > > > > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba
> > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > > 988b
> > > > > > > > > >
> > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekB
> > > > > > > > > > p0
> > > > > > > > > > Dxan
> > > > > > > > > > w0WR
> > > > > > > > > > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01
> > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > c01%
> > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b5
> > > > > > > > > > 1e
> > > > > > > > > > ba%7
> > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQ
> > > > > > > > > > DT
> > > > > > > > > > qkpn
> > > > > > > > > > 0g%2 bu2XXHzE4pDZ0K%2fhU%3d> versions of xUnit, there is
> a
> > > > > > > > > > TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&da
> > > > > > > > > > ta
> > > > > > > > > > =01%
> > > > > > > > > > 7c01
> > > > > > > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > > > > > > > > > 38
> > > > > > > > > > 0b51
> > > > > > > > > > eba%
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQ
> > > > > > > > > > iP q3Ss F3Eb v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the
> ability
> > > > > > > > > > to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-t
> > > > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > > > ts-v
> > > > > > > > > > s&da
> > > > > > > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > %7c443f03152dfd4
> > > > > > > > > > 51
> > > > > > > > > > ebb1
> > > > > > > > > > c08d
> > > > > > > > > >
> > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f
> > > > > > > > > > 3X EmrU yKQu 8tdZtoghxSskpFBPP1N1YGxT7e45Vc%3d.>
> > > > > > > > > > I believe the long-term maintenance cost for both full
> and
> > > > > > > > > > core fx tests would be lower using xUnit. Is this an
> > > > > > > > > > acceptable direction for me to take the unit tests?
> Please
> > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > me know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Below is the progress of our migration work, for the
> > curious.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Remove use of SharpZipLib dependency - completed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Update ICU4NET dependency for .NET Core -
> > completed
> > > in
> > > > > dev
> > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a. In
> > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Remove Appache.NMS dependency - completed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. Move Scheduler to use Tasks - PR submitted
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a. Pull request at
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/171
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5. Make portable libraries to build .NET Core
> > binaries
> > > -
> > > > > > > > completed
> > > > > > > > > > in dev branch
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a. In
> > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 6. Verify tests pass on both full framework and
> .Net
> > > > Core.
> > > > > -
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > progress
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a. Need to get tests to run on .NET Core.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Just reviewed it and it looks great - thanks! added a few minor comments,
once you get them fixed we can merge that in. Thanks again!
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Itamar,
>
>
> I created a new PR to address the concerns you have and have opted to add
> to the existing ctors rather than remove them. I think this will make it
> easier to merge in new changes.
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/177
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Connie
>
>
> Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
> ________________________________
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com <it...@gmail.com> on behalf
> of Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:37:44 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
>
> Awesome, thanks Wyatt.
>
> Connie, let's go with whatever approach that will allow us touch as few
> files as possible. https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172 touches an
> awful lot of files - so if adding back those constructors can help with
> that let's go for it.
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=VdCSUl8OTrd9dBpigKpuJOWt%2bd2fGnK5rQkFJrXlOIc%3d |
> @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%
> 7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ns64cpE%
> 2fsYvbhQLaXmAcRJAx9BQguO3aZ17kVvd%2fI1I%3d>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sure thing Itamar.
> >
> > Any PR will build automatically the way we are setup. The key is the
> github
> > pull request ID -- 172 in this case. Heading on down to our teamcity
> > project at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fteamcity.codebetter.com%2fproject.html%
> 3fprojectId%3dLuceneNet&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=8kRAMqw8i96mLGimaXQpG3MMMcB8HY%2bHkd0F%2bdq7rjY%3d
> > clicking
> > on any of the blue 172s will get the build for that segment of that
> branch.
> > Note that projects unaffected by your changes will not have the branch so
> > don't be alarmed if you don't see builds in Lucene.Net.Analysis for
> > example.
> >
> > A direct link to the core build for this PR is
> >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fteamcity.codebetter.com%2fviewType.html%3fbuildTypeId%
> 3dLuceneNet_Core%26branch_LuceneNet%3d172%26tab%
> 3dbuildTypeStatusDiv&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=U5BEzqRyQGKrsh7O4tA8v0q5t0U65y%2fWHOWPetvE3yg%3d
> >
> >
> > Let me know if you've got further questions.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 5:51 PM Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I reviewed your PR - looks mostly good, left a few comments there.
> > >
> > > Wyatt - can you help Connie with running her branch on the CI?
> > >
> > > WRT the usage of a seed - yes, we would want to support this, but
> that's
> > > not a trivial task because we need to integrate with the test runner
> and
> > > get a seed from the randomized runner. This is something we will tackle
> > > later.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=VdCSUl8OTrd9dBpigKpuJOWt%2bd2fGnK5rQkFJrXlOIc%3d |
> @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%
> 7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ns64cpE%
> 2fsYvbhQLaXmAcRJAx9BQguO3aZ17kVvd%2fI1I%3d>
> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've taken a first step in creating a PR to limit the use of static
> > > > variables/methods so that they can be used asynchronously and in
> > parallel
> > > > when we transition to xUnit.
> > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/172
> > > >
> > > > My next PR would be to actually use xUnit in the LuceneTestCases. I
> > have
> > > a
> > > > branch almost ready. Would I be able to work with someone to make
> sure
> > > > these work in master in your CI builds? Or should Ikeep the changes
> to
> > > > xUnit in Lucene.NET Core branch?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I had a hard time comparing my test results from the existing master
> > > > branch to my changes because of the use of static new Random() in
> > > > LuceneTestCase. Eventually I had to use a seed to get consistent
> > > results.
> > > > Are there any plans to use a seed? I noticed there was a TODO here
> > > (_random
> > > > = new Random(/* LUCENENET TODO seed */)).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Connie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Outlook<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.
> com/?url=http%3a%2f%2faka.ms%2fweboutlook&data=01%7c01%
> 7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c3c2919e8aab64f9fd98308d3b1af5036%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=RZQLfuAyy%2bYJSTnkBqSAQl%
> 2byEr0YMz0jJQf8eg%2bIjQA%3d>
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com <it...@gmail.com> on
> > > behalf
> > > > of Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:28:54 AM
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > >
> > > > I don't have an easy answer then. The obvious answer would be to
> change
> > > > this to a Config object that's passed around or similar - or make
> them
> > > > immutable and somehow change that config in the test configuration. A
> > > good
> > > > place to start is to track the usage, and confirm the intended usage
> > > > pattern with the Java codebase just in case.
> > > >
> > > > About both issues, timeouts and mutable configs - I trust your good
> > > > judgment here. What's important is faster running and more stable
> > tests,
> > > we
> > > > can skip Java compatiblilty in the testsframework as long as it's
> > > > documented and gives us large benefits.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=Jq49Nz%2bncnMPchpLuQ68SimD%2fm6Ea9XMH0GwBb6%2fuy8%3d
> > > > | @synhershko <
> > > >
> > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%
> 7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c12ff0503b3f5408feba408d3a67b6eae%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=VUl%2bR410%2bKQ5An8pAvc%
> 2f5E5niSbckAR9s21ZtrGCzVg%3d
> > > > >
> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, all of the statics are mutable. And some of the test cases
> make
> > > use
> > > > > of this... An example is: OLD_FORMAT_IMPERSONATION_IS_ACTIVE. The
> > old
> > > > > codec tests modify this field from true/false.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the Timeout issue, I like Laimonas' suggestion to use a Trait
> > to
> > > > > ignore running this specific tests until they've been properly
> > > > > investigated. Brad points out in this issue that there is no way to
> > > > > accurate way to measure Timeouts because of the parallization in
> > xUnit
> > > (
> > > > > https://github.com/xunit/xunit/issues/217).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Connie
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:
> > itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:52 PM
> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the statics are remnants of the Lucene Java port, and
> > mostly
> > > > > readonly configurations. Are any of those statics mutable?
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding on the timeout thing - this indeed was a precaution. We
> should
> > > > > probably move from a attribute-based timeout to throwing a
> > > > TimeoutException
> > > > > from the main test method, having the main loop check for the time
> > > passed
> > > > > since start and throw if it's above the timeout configured?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3a%2f%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%
> 7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=RfcfWtLeiAc%2b3JDIALSdcDTae5%2bA7PwdVbVQAAU%2fh1U%3d
> > > > > | @synhershko <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%
> 7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c7e667aa0b59d4958c19b08d39d3236bc%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=%2fqmKXKltLCaz%
> 2bpDdzAPJRhKlv5hRojyT41IydWUFD9o%3d
> > > > > >
> > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Connie Yau <
> conniey@microsoft.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the input! I will add a Trait for the tests that
> have
> > > > > > Timeouts for now so they can be fixed to be more stable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more question... While migrating the code to xUnit, I noticed
> > > that
> > > > > > there are a lot of `static` variables in LuceneTestCase and which
> > > > > > would make it hard to run in parallel because some test classes
> > > modify
> > > > > > the static values. Is there a reason for keeping them static?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Connie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Laimonas Simutis [mailto:laimis@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:54 PM
> > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wyatt is right on. Certain tests under random circumstances could
> > get
> > > > > > into a bad state and run "forever", potentially generate gigs of
> > data
> > > > > > on disk, etc and so timeout was added to abort the test earlier
> in
> > > > > > case that happened.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our plan was to make a pass at those long running tests and fix
> the
> > > > > > issues that cause them to run so long once we are fully complete
> > with
> > > > > the porting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps you can add a category / trait on such tests in order to
> > > avoid
> > > > > > them until they can be properly investigated and underlying
> issues
> > > > fixed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Wyatt Barnett
> > > > > > <wy...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know the history on why the timeouts were added but I
> > > > > > > suspect they were self-defensive in nature. I think in most
> cases
> > > > > > > the timeouts are really back-stopping things so that if there
> is
> > a
> > > > > > > race condition the test suite bails and fails rather than runs
> > > > > > > forever. Is there a way to backstop stuff like that with xunit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:24 PM Connie Yau <
> > conniey@microsoft.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been looking into migrating existing tests from NUnit to
> > > > > > > > xUnit and I think it's doable with the suggestions that were
> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > The only question I need answered from the community is:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "How important are timeouts in your test cases?"
> > > > > > > > - xUnit runs tests asynchronously and parallel, so they
> removed
> > > > > > > > the ability to have timeout because the ability to time these
> > > > > > > > tests are not reliable.
> > > > > > > > - There are 4 timeouts that I see in the cases.
> > > > > > > > - int.MaxValue
> > > > > > > > - 5 minutes
> > > > > > > > - 2.5 minutes
> > > > > > > > - 40000 milliseconds
> > > > > > > > My current approach to dealing with timeouts is removing them
> > > > > > > > because the tests run concurrently, so we aren’t waiting for
> a
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > test to finish.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > Connie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:26 PM
> > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Our goal with the tests was to keep it working with the
> > existing
> > > > > > > > system with a few changes as possible. We thought there
> would
> > be
> > > > > > > > more changes than the community was comfortable with.
> However,
> > > it
> > > > > > > > sounds like the interest in xUnit is more that we realized.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are three items that concerned us in the xUnit move.
> > > > > > > > 1. No categories - Traits can be used instead. Hopefully
> just
> > > > > > > > some simple cut and paste.
> > > > > > > > 2. No timeout for test cases - This is the biggest issue as
> tc
> > > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > frequently used in the test cases I saw. We are not sure the
> > > > > > > > effect of this or how to overcome any issues related to this.
> > > > > > > > 3. TeamCity integration - Looks like Wyatt found a good
> > article
> > > > > > > > explaining how to do this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps Connie can look into the first two issues and Wyatt
> can
> > > > > > > > look into the last one? Connie will respond with an update
> by
> > > > > > > > tomorrow evening and then we can decide together.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On a sad note, I've been pulled off onto another project.
> > Connie
> > > > > > > > will take point on this project and finish up necessary work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:12 AM
> > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response, I was off at the beach last
> > > > weekend.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not a whole lot of seat-time w/ xunit here. In terms of
> running
> > > > > > > > it, there is a plugin, we can see if CodeBetter would be
> > willing
> > > > > > > > to install it. The hand-plumbed option doesn't seem to
> daunting
> > > > > either.
> > > > > > > > In terms of
> > > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > that is a better question but it seems like Xunit has a
> > [Traits]
> > > > > > > attribute
> > > > > > > > that could be used -- see
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fstac
> > > > > > > ko
> > > > > > > verflow.com
> > > %2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-fi
> > > > > > > lt
> > > > > > >
> > > > ered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.
> Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > > >
> > > com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
> > > > > > > 1d
> > b47%7c1&sdata=SaJ%2b%2b5r2mjXE6s550uotyCpNxB9eTP5EH577DmSU8to%3d
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > an example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:49 AM Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > <it...@code972.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "All these issues together lead us to the conclusion that
> we
> > > > > > > > > would be doing a disservice to just blindly port to
> xUnit." -
> > > > > > > > > why do you say that? if a move to xUnit benefits us on
> > multiple
> > > > > > > > > occasions (better API, .NET Core support, faster runs) this
> > > > > > > > > one-tine effort would be
> > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > it - no?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wyatt, can you chime in perhaps - you have the most
> > experience
> > > > > > > > > getting the build system to run, and test categorisation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c93aa1f132
> > > > > > > > > 28
> > > > > > > > > a414
> > > > > > > > >
> > > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U
> > > > > > > > > pe iUeT A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d |
> @synhershko
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%
> > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > twit
> > > > > > > > > ter.com
> > > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > > m%7c
> > > > > > > > >
> > > 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> > > > > > > > > b4 7%7c
> > > > > > > > > 1&sdata=kc%2fH3fEbR68ajKlN3pZ7vISmdPb%
> 2bIRTHWrDTZ4FdplY%3d>
> > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and
> PMC
> > > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN) <
> > > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all. I have a quick update on our progress.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We did a test of what it would be like to port Lucene.NET
> > to
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > > > As Itamer guessed, it is quite a bit of work. The basic
> > work
> > > > > > > > > > of renaming attributes and changing out package names and
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > like is a little
> > > > > > > > > tedious,
> > > > > > > > > > but it is doable. The issues comes in because of the use
> > of
> > > > > > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > timeout attributes. Creating categories in xUnit is
> > > possible,
> > > > > > > > > > but rather complicated. The bigger issue is that my
> > research
> > > > > > > > > > indicated that
> > > > > > > > > TeamCity
> > > > > > > > > > only has basic integration with xUnit and you have to run
> > all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > tests.
> > > > > > > > > > Running only categories requires extra scripting. The
> > bigger
> > > > > > > > > > issue was that there is no TimeOut attribute in xUnit so
> > > > > > > > > > longer running tests are
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > issue. We would also have to re-arrange some the test
> > > fixture
> > > > > > > > > > setup and teardown code into class constructors and
> dispose
> > > > > > > > > > methods, but that work was doable. All these issues
> > together
> > > > > > > > > > lead us to the conclusion that we would be doing a
> > disservice
> > > > > > > > > > to just blindly port
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > xUnit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > nUnit has just release an alpha package that runs on .NET
> > > Core
> > > > > RC2.
> > > > > > > > > > Connie is looking into getting working this week or next
> to
> > > so
> > > > > > > > > > we can
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > the use of such features as testcase timeouts and
> > categories.
> > > > > > > > > > We'll send an update when we've tried out the alpha
> > package.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:40 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's sounds everyone is favor of the move to xUnit. I've
> > > > > > > > > > talked to a couple of my co-workers and they said the
> > > > > > > > > > conversion can be a little tedious, but often worth the
> > > > > > > > > > effort. Give me a couple days to see if
> > > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > > a rabbits hole. I'll respond back if its more effort
> that
> > I
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > expend.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > > > Regarding your last question. There are no more know
> tasks
> > > > > > > > > > other than what I initially outlined. Once I merge
> > Connie's
> > > > > > > > > > change in from master
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > will have a building/ported assembly. I just need to get
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > to verify everything works as expected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 6:46 AM
> > > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey there,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you so much again for your great work here. Lots of
> > > good
> > > > > > > > > > contributions we could definitely use.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Moving to xUnit.Net was actually on my list of things to
> > do -
> > > > > > > > > > basically also because it's API is much better and more
> > > > > > > > > > flexible (and less buggy!) and my experience with it was
> > much
> > > > > > > > > > better than with NUnit (which we use
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > outdated version of). Some people claim xUnit is also
> > faster,
> > > > > > > > > > so hey
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you sure you can "easily move all tests to xUnit"?
> From
> > > > > > > > > > what I can tell this will be a rather rigorous copy-paste
> > > job?
> > > > > > > > > > While the JavaCompatibility bits we have (
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/tree/master/src/Lucene.Net.T
> > > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > > tFra
> > > > > > > > > mework/JavaCompatibility
> > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > do contain centralized function like assertTrue() etc
> that
> > > > > > > > > > save loads of time and effort porting tests, so that
> could
> > be
> > > > > > > > > > changed easily to use xUnit, there are many places where
> > > > > > > > > > asserts etc where ported in full to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > NUnit API.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am definitely pro this change, but let's make sure we
> > don't
> > > > > > > > > > go down
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > a rabbit hole first. Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With regards to the status update:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. I made some last minor comments on the merge scheduler
> > PR
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > we should be able to merge it within a few days now.
> Great
> > > > > > > > > > work there
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. What is keeping us from merging your ICU etc changes?
> > > > > > > > > > please note some subprojects are absolutely necessary for
> > > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET to run on Core CLR as well - even though they
> > are
> > > > > > > > > > "sub" projects and not part of the Lucene
> > > > > > > > > core
> > > > > > > > > > itself. Queries and Analysis are probably the biggest
> ones
> > > > > > > > > > (latter not fully ported yet, and it's the one with the
> ICU
> > > > dep).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Other than what you posted - are there any other
> pending
> > > > > > > > > > items to get this running on .NET Core?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2f
> > > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > > de97
> > > > > > > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c443f03152
> > > > > > > > > df
> > > > > > > > > d451
> > > > > > > > >
> > > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H
> > > > > > > > > xE
> > > > > > > > > 52%2 bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > > > > > > > | @synhershko <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2
> > > > > > > > > ft
> > > > > > > > > witt
> > > > > > > > > er.com
> > > %2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.c
> > > > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > > > %7c4
> > > > > > > > >
> > > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db
> > > > > > > > > 47
> > > > > > > > > %7c1 &sdata=7iqRqwQwlcNbmwkckUjcS1MWjUPJi3cxLFfRdLc3BnQ%3d
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and
> > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Elizabeth Maher
> (NEWMAN) <
> > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Lucene.NET Community,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Connie and I continue to make progress on moving
> > Lucene.NET
> > > > > > > > > > > to .NET
> > > > > > > > > Core.
> > > > > > > > > > > The last challenge we face is to get the tests to
> > > > > > > > > > > successfully run on .NET Core. Currently the unit
> tests
> > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > NUnit. There is a .NET Core version called NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > > However, the issue is there is some manual steps to get
> > > > > > > > > > > NUnitLite tests to work on
> > > > > > .NET Core.
> > > > > > > > > > > We would have to create console applications for each
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > test library, call the appropriate APIs to create a
> test
> > > > > > > > > > > results file and then work with the CI system to
> manually
> > > > > > > > > > > upload
> > > > > > the results.
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, there is not Test Runner integration for
> NUnitLite.
> > > > > > > > > > > While, this is all possible to do, I would like to
> > propose
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > different change. I could easily move all the test to
> > use
> > > > > > > > > > > xUnit. The would benefit Lucene.NET in the long run as
> > > > > > > > > > > there are both full fx<
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c0
> > > > > > > > > > > 1%
> > > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > > izab
> > > > > > > > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba
> > > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > > > 988b
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekB
> > > > > > > > > > > p0
> > > > > > > > > > > Dxan
> > > > > > > > > > > w0WR
> > > > > > > > > > > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01
> > > > > > > > > > > %7
> > > > > > > > > > > c01%
> > > > > > > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > > > > > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b5
> > > > > > > > > > > 1e
> > > > > > > > > > > ba%7
> > > > > > > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQ
> > > > > > > > > > > DT
> > > > > > > > > > > qkpn
> > > > > > > > > > > 0g%2 bu2XXHzE4pDZ0K%2fhU%3d> versions of xUnit, there
> is
> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > > %2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&da
> > > > > > > > > > > ta
> > > > > > > > > > > =01%
> > > > > > > > > > > 7c01
> > > > > > > > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > > > > > > > > > > 38
> > > > > > > > > > > 0b51
> > > > > > > > > > > eba%
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQ
> > > > > > > > > > > iP q3Ss F3Eb v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the
> > ability
> > > > > > > > > > > to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%
> > > > > > > > > > > 2f
> > > > > > > > > > > %2fx
> > > > > > > > > > > unit
> > > > > > > > > > > .github.io
> > > %2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-t
> > > > > > > > > > > es
> > > > > > > > > > > ts-v
> > > > > > > > > > > s&da
> > > > > > > > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c443f03152dfd4
> > > > > > > > > > > 51
> > > > > > > > > > > ebb1
> > > > > > > > > > > c08d
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f
> > > > > > > > > > > 3X EmrU yKQu 8tdZtoghxSskpFBPP1N1YGxT7e45Vc%3d.>
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe the long-term maintenance cost for both full
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > core fx tests would be lower using xUnit. Is this an
> > > > > > > > > > > acceptable direction for me to take the unit tests?
> > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > me know.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Below is the progress of our migration work, for the
> > > curious.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Remove use of SharpZipLib dependency -
> completed
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Update ICU4NET dependency for .NET Core -
> > > completed
> > > > in
> > > > > > dev
> > > > > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a. In
> > > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. Remove Appache.NMS dependency - completed
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. Move Scheduler to use Tasks - PR submitted
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a. Pull request at
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/171
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. Make portable libraries to build .NET Core
> > > binaries
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > > completed
> > > > > > > > > > > in dev branch
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a. In
> > > > > https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/tree/move2dnx.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 6. Verify tests pass on both full framework and
> > .Net
> > > > > Core.
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > progress
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a. Need to get tests to run on .NET Core.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Elizabeth
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>