You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by "Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)" <El...@microsoft.com> on 2016/05/20 00:17:55 UTC
Lucene.NET to .NET Core
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://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-desktop.html> and core fx<https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html> versions of xUnit, there is a TeamCity plugin that automatically works<https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-test-results-in-teamcity.html>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual Studio.<https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html#run-tests-vs.> 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 Laimonas Simutis <la...@gmail.com>.
No objections here for the move to xUnit. The changes that are required to
keep nunit in place did not sound pleasant.
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Elad Margalit <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> use xUnit, I personally prefer it over the NUnit.
> there will be many replaces ([Test]->[Fact] for instance), but I'm sure it
> can be done easily.
>
>
> 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://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-desktop.html> and core fx<
> > https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html> versions
> > of xUnit, there is a TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> > https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-test-results-in-teamcity.html>, as
> > well as the ability to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> >
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html#run-tests-vs
> .>
> > 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 Elad Margalit <el...@gmail.com>.
use xUnit, I personally prefer it over the NUnit.
there will be many replaces ([Test]->[Fact] for instance), but I'm sure it
can be done easily.
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://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-desktop.html> and core fx<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html> versions
> of xUnit, there is a TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-test-results-in-teamcity.html>, as
> well as the ability to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html#run-tests-vs.>
> 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>.
Sounds like a plan, thanks. If the move to xUnit (latest...) is doable,
let's do it.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN) <
Elizabeth.Maher@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> | @synhershko <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cElizab
> > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988b
> > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxanw0WR
> > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cEl
> > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn0g%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%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%
> > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3SsF3Eb
> > v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> > Studio.<
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrUyKQu
> > 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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
Hi Itamar,
Thanks for looking it over! :) I reviewed your comments and made the changes.
In regards to commenting out some RandomIndexWriter constructors, I understand that you are trying to decrease the number of discrepancies between Java version and Lucene.NET. The reason I had removed them was because LuceneTestCase.NewIndexWriterConfig method is no longer static. It depends on the non-static variable ClassEnvRule, more specifically ClassEnvRule.Similarity and ClassEnvRule.TimeZone.
The other constructors I commented out were making it one line easier to get a RandomIndexWriter. All the test classes inherit from LuceneTestCase, so they would be able to call the non-static NewIndexWriterConfig and pass that to the RandomIndexWriter.
An alternative is to add a static overload that takes Similarity and Timezone and add those parameters to RandomIndexWriter. I have a branch here you can compare: https://github.com/conniey/lucenenet/compare/staticLuceneTestCase...conniey:addRandomIndexWriterCtorsBack
Any other suggestions are welcome!
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: Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:51:32 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
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%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=TpMbL%2bu6EDkYOmLshr7%2bfvOAQN8q04GiRFtaCLy1oRU%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=rMDcfWPS%2fjaIdldnkIwLBjzqeg4asimJ%2ffnfpiIvCCk%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%7c56c6174d25e0412c5c9308d3adc36258%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=O59qzUcLXD8h1I5nQW5veABH35eiGHdlE3Yld5xJb9o%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 <co...@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
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.NET to .NET Core
Posted by Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
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>.
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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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 http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet
> 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
>
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core&branch_LuceneNet=172&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
>
>
> 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
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > 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<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > 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 Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>.
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 http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet
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
http://teamcity.codebetter.com/viewType.html?buildTypeId=LuceneNet_Core&branch_LuceneNet=172&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
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
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> 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<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > 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 <co...@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>.
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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
> ________________________________
> 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 <co...@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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
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<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
________________________________
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 <co...@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>.
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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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 <co...@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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
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 <co...@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>.
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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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 <co...@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%2fstacko
> > verflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filt
> > ered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> > com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> > 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%2fco
> > > > de97
> > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228
> > > > a414
> > > > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Upe
> > > > 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%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> > > > 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.Tes
> > > > 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%2fco
> > > > de97
> > > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152df
> > > > d451
> > > > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE
> > > > 52%2 bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > > | @synhershko <
> > > > >
> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ft
> > > > witt
> > > > er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > > %7c4
> > > > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47
> > > > %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%7c01%
> > > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > > izab
> > > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > 988b
> > > > > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0
> > > > > > 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%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51e
> > > > > > ba%7
> > > > > > c72f
> > > > > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDT
> > > > > > 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&data
> > > > > > =01%
> > > > > > 7c01
> > > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d38
> > > > > > 0b51
> > > > > > eba%
> > > > > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiP
> > > > > > 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-tes
> > > > > > ts-v
> > > > > > s&da
> > > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> > > > > > ebb1
> > > > > > c08d
> > > > > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3X
> > > > > > 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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
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 <co...@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%2fstacko
> verflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filt
> ered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.
> com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> 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%2fco
> > > de97
> > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228
> > > a414
> > > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Upe
> > > 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%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db4
> > > 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.Tes
> > > 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%2fco
> > > de97
> > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152df
> > > d451
> > > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE
> > > 52%2 bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > | @synhershko <
> > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ft
> > > witt
> > > er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com
> > > %7c4
> > > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47
> > > %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%7c01%
> > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > izab
> > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > > > c72f
> > > > > 988b
> > > > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0
> > > > > 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%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51e
> > > > > ba%7
> > > > > c72f
> > > > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDT
> > > > > 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&data
> > > > > =01%
> > > > > 7c01
> > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d38
> > > > > 0b51
> > > > > eba%
> > > > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiP
> > > > > 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-tes
> > > > > ts-v
> > > > > s&da
> > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> > > > > ebb1
> > > > > c08d
> > > > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3X
> > > > > 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 Laimonas Simutis <la...@gmail.com>.
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 <co...@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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filtered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fcode97
> > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a414
> > > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UpeiUeT
> > > A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d | @synhershko
> > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwit
> > > ter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c
> > > 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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.TestFra
> > > 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%2fcode97
> > > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> > > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2
> > > bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > > | @synhershko <
> > > >
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitt
> > > er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c4
> > > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%7c01%7cEl
> > > > > izab
> > > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > > > > 988b
> > > > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxan
> > > > > 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%7c01%
> > > > > 7cEl
> > > > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > > > c72f
> > > > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn
> > > > > 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&data=01%
> > > > > 7c01
> > > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51
> > > > > eba%
> > > > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3Ss
> > > > > 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-tests-v
> > > > > s&da
> > > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1
> > > > > c08d
> > > > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrU
> > > > > 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 Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>.
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 <co...@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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filtered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fcode97
> > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a414
> > 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UpeiUeT
> > A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d | @synhershko
> > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwit
> > ter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c
> > 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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.TestFra
> > 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%2fcode97
> > 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> > ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2
> > bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > > | @synhershko <
> > >
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitt
> > er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c4
> > 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%7c01%7cEl
> > > > izab
> > > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > > > 988b
> > > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxan
> > > > 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%7c01%
> > > > 7cEl
> > > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > > c72f
> > > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn
> > > > 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&data=01%
> > > > 7c01
> > > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51
> > > > eba%
> > > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3Ss
> > > > 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-tests-v
> > > > s&da
> > > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1
> > > > c08d
> > > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrU
> > > > 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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filtered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fcode97
> 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a414
> 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UpeiUeT
> A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d | @synhershko
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwit
> ter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c
> 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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.TestFra
> 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%2fcode97
> 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2
> bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > | @synhershko <
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitt
> er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c4
> 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%7c01%7cEl
> > > izab
> > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > > 988b
> > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxan
> > > 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%7c01%
> > > 7cEl
> > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > c72f
> > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn
> > > 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&data=01%
> > > 7c01
> > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51
> > > eba%
> > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3Ss
> > > 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-tests-v
> > > s&da
> > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1
> > > c08d
> > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrU
> > > 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 "Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)" <El...@microsoft.com>.
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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f21791739%2fexecute-tests-based-on-xunit-filtered-by-traits-in-teamcity&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fcode97
> 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c93aa1f13228a414
> 2f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UpeiUeT
> A6iiP7fV7dZ9Z9bKiMjgqo990K6xyt4D6LTs%3d | @synhershko
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwit
> ter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c
> 93aa1f13228a4142f26108d3991d5513%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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.TestFra
> 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%2fcode97
> 2.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451
> ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2
> bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > | @synhershko <
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitt
> er.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c4
> 43f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%7c01%7cEl
> > > izab
> > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > > 988b
> > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxan
> > > 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%7c01%
> > > 7cEl
> > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7
> > > c72f
> > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn
> > > 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&data=01%
> > > 7c01
> > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51
> > > eba%
> > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3Ss
> > > 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-tests-v
> > > s&da
> > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1
> > > c08d
> > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrU
> > > 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 Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>.
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
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21791739/execute-tests-based-on-xunit-filtered-by-traits-in-teamcity
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
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> 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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> > | @synhershko <
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fxunit
> > > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cElizab
> > > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988b
> > > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxanw0WR
> > > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cEl
> > > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn0g%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%2fxunit
> > > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> > > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%
> > > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3SsF3Eb
> > > v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> > > Studio.<
> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> > > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrUyKQu
> > > 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>.
"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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d
> | @synhershko <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cElizab
> > eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988b
> > f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxanw0WR
> > rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cEl
> > izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> > 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn0g%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%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> > %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%
> > 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3SsF3Eb
> > v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> > Studio.<
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> > .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> > ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> > 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrUyKQu
> > 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 "Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)" <El...@microsoft.com>.
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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cElizab
> eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988b
> f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxanw0WR
> rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cEl
> izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn0g%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%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3SsF3Eb
> v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> Studio.<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrUyKQu
> 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 "Elizabeth Maher (NEWMAN)" <El...@microsoft.com>.
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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=HxE52%2bFAC6FJAN%2fifQ5V8v27tZZALzBuDw2yhbw%2bkc8%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%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%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cElizab
> eth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f988b
> f86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2orwADQfb%2fkpCykXkySekBp0Dxanw0WR
> rUupy%2fzRFTY%3d> and core fx<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cEl
> izabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%7c72f
> 988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=UGKx5nz6%2foaV2vt2LQDTqkpn0g%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%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> %7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d380b51eba%
> 7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=an0p3MTPFYe24wQiPq3SsF3Eb
> v3gwJwrr88TjoQ4DnM%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> Studio.<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> ta=01%7c01%7cElizabeth.Maher%40microsoft.com%7c443f03152dfd451ebb1c08d
> 380b51eba%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BN%2f3XEmrUyKQu
> 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 Connie Yau <co...@microsoft.com>.
Hi Itamar,
In regards to ICU4NET, we replaced ICU4NET with icu-dotnet (https://github.com/sillsdev/icu-dotnet). We decided to change the library because ICU4NET is a uses a small C++/CLI wrapper around the original library but there are currently no plans to move C++/CLI to cross-platform. icu-dotnet uses PInvokes instead. :)
I want to merge the icu-dotnet changes into apache/master but I need to get a PR into their repository (since I migrated their project to CoreCLR) and get them to release a nuget package on nuget.org. (Currently we are hosting it on myget.)
Cheers,
Connie Yau
-----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.TestFramework/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%2fcode972.com&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ecf%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DgJJfs3GoVAszAY51RpmuWKVbHQxca9ErQsosmJvPJY%3d | @synhershko <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fsynhershko&data=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ecf%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=kSD2eVeUZ%2f59hq2vUVjPFjSABDvG4wu4Pex%2fvKqOnl4%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%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-desktop.html&data=01%7c01%7cconnie
> y%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ecf%7c72f988bf86f141a
> f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Iz7kdz%2bwkDseWoleauC2YlGQw3N3biYGY1Wrhp%2
> b14WA%3d> and core fx<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html&data=01%7c01%7cco
> nniey%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ecf%7c72f988bf86f
> 141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=abpd6MsotGG5%2bl%2fV3GfbHNVzLvWO3S12Hg
> oPBAzZoBU%3d> versions of xUnit, there is a TeamCity plugin that
> automatically works<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-test-results-in-teamcity.html&data=01%7c01
> %7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ecf%7c72f988
> bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DWt0a73YgOjpyzI%2f5X6xzgWLR3C8Ebx
> PwnzMscXYkG8%3d>, as well as the ability to run tests in Visual
> Studio.<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fxunit
> .github.io%2fdocs%2fgetting-started-dotnet-core.html%23run-tests-vs&da
> ta=01%7c01%7cconniey%40microsoft.com%7c18689bbcd9284456a79608d380b51ec
> f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=eO0ehRUanBT8aTVrD36VctX
> %2fxOw3hWF8A8riTEqVTCA%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>.
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.TestFramework/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
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
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://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-desktop.html> and core fx<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html> versions
> of xUnit, there is a TeamCity plugin that automatically works<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-test-results-in-teamcity.html>, as
> well as the ability to run tests in Visual Studio.<
> https://xunit.github.io/docs/getting-started-dotnet-core.html#run-tests-vs.>
> 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
>