You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to nmaven-dev@incubator.apache.org by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/05 03:32:53 UTC
NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Hi All,
I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on the nunit
plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently when nunit
tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much fun when
your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a junit output
vs nunit output comparison
-- JUNIT --
Running package1.TestClass1
Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.016 sec
Running package2.TestClass2
Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.031 sec
.
.
.
Results :
Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
-- NUNIT --
NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console C:\dev\project
\main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /out
{SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather reformatting and
displaying it like the junit plugin does.
Thoughts?
Evan
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
Yes I agree, and what I discussed earlier does function in that fashion.
However to do easily, we won't use the /stdOut /stdErr options with
nunit-console. We can optionally log the stdOut/stdErr ourself using the
stream consumer if we wish.
Evan
On 6/7/07, Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We just need to make sure that log messages display to the user as they
> occur, not as a large chunk at the end of processing.
>
> Shane
>
>
> On 6/7/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, "Passing the NUnit output"...
> >
> > On 6/7/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Passing the NMaven output to the console is fairly trivial, I did it a
> > few
> > > days ago. If I remember correctly, when you invoke the CommandLine
> you
> > can
> > > specify a StreamConsumer which will consume the lines of output from
> the
> > > CommandLine. We can pipe the input that the consumer receives to the
> > maven
> > > console. I think the more involved task it getting the nunit output
> > where
> > > we want it.
> > >
> > > Evan
> > >
> > > On 6/7/07, Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > All of the NUnit code is under a zlib license, so we can modify the
> > > > nunit-console to do what we want. The issue of how we get .NET
> output
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > output console that Maven is using is a general one that we haven't
> > > > tackled
> > > > yet. The IDE gets Maven output by using socket loggers, so that is
> one
> > > > approach. I think this is also where log4net may come into play,
> > > > allowing us
> > > > to use different appenders to output to sockets, messaging systems,
> > etc,
> > > > for
> > > > logging interoperability.
> > > >
> > > > Shane
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/6/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brett,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you are right on with the two important issues being how
> to
> > > > > identify
> > > > > the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of
> the
> > > > > difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the
> > > > nunit-console
> > > > > either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to
> > > > file. In
> > > > > the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests
> > are
> > > > > done,
> > > > > which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info
> to
> > > > > report
> > > > > from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit
> > fragile. It
> > > > > seems
> > > > > that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for
> > java.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute
> our
> > > > nunit
> > > > > tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > Evan
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire
> > changes
> > > > > > (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at
> > > > all.
> > > > > > At first glance, it looks possible to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The key things are really that:
> > > > > > a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> > > > > > b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where
> you'd
> > > > > > want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the
> > tests
> > > > -
> > > > > > but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> > > > > > surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> > > > > > executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the
> design
> > in
> > > > > > surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork
> > > > once,
> > > > > > fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always
> > > > otherwise).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wdyt?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Brett
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current
> > > > surefire
> > > > > > > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working
> > > > with
> > > > > > > nunit
> > > > > > > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone
> have
> > > > any
> > > > > > > idea how
> > > > > > > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the
> nunit
> > > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > > > > > > analyzes the
> > > > > > > results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for any help,
> > > > > > > Evan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <evanworley@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming
> > the
> > > > > > >> nunit
> > > > > > >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze
> > nunit
> > > >
> > > > > > >> into a
> > > > > > >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> When you are building the same component in java and C#,
> these
> > > > > > >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to
> > have
> > > >
> > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > >> platforms build output consistent.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Evan
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit
> > > > nunit in
> > > > > > >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > - Brett
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some
> work
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > nunit
> > > > > > >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit
> > > > plugin. Currently
> > > > > > >> > > when nunit
> > > > > > >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not
> too
> > > > much
> > > > > > >> > > fun when
> > > > > > >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here
> is
> > a
> > > >
> > > > > > >> junit
> > > > > > >> > > output
> > > > > > >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > -- JUNIT --
> > > > > > >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > > > > > >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > > > elapsed:
> > > > > > >> > > 0.016 sec
> > > > > > >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > > > > > >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > > > elapsed:
> > > > > > >> > > 0.031 sec
> > > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > > >> > > Results :
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > -- NUNIT --
> > > > > > >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline =
> > nunit-console
> > > > > > >> C:\dev
> > > > > > >> > > \project
> > > > > > >> > >
> > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll
> > > > /
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but
> rather
> > > > > > >> > > reformatting and
> > > > > > >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >> > > Evan
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com>.
We just need to make sure that log messages display to the user as they
occur, not as a large chunk at the end of processing.
Shane
On 6/7/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, "Passing the NUnit output"...
>
> On 6/7/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Passing the NMaven output to the console is fairly trivial, I did it a
> few
> > days ago. If I remember correctly, when you invoke the CommandLine you
> can
> > specify a StreamConsumer which will consume the lines of output from the
> > CommandLine. We can pipe the input that the consumer receives to the
> maven
> > console. I think the more involved task it getting the nunit output
> where
> > we want it.
> >
> > Evan
> >
> > On 6/7/07, Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > All of the NUnit code is under a zlib license, so we can modify the
> > > nunit-console to do what we want. The issue of how we get .NET output
> to
> > > the
> > > output console that Maven is using is a general one that we haven't
> > > tackled
> > > yet. The IDE gets Maven output by using socket loggers, so that is one
> > > approach. I think this is also where log4net may come into play,
> > > allowing us
> > > to use different appenders to output to sockets, messaging systems,
> etc,
> > > for
> > > logging interoperability.
> > >
> > > Shane
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/6/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brett,
> > > >
> > > > I think you are right on with the two important issues being how to
> > > > identify
> > > > the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of the
> > > > difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the
> > > nunit-console
> > > > either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to
> > > file. In
> > > > the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests
> are
> > > > done,
> > > > which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info to
> > > > report
> > > > from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit
> fragile. It
> > > > seems
> > > > that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for
> java.
> > > >
> > > > It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute our
> > > nunit
> > > > tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > Evan
> > > >
> > > > On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire
> changes
> > > > > (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at
> > > all.
> > > > > At first glance, it looks possible to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The key things are really that:
> > > > > a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> > > > > b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
> > > > > want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the
> tests
> > > -
> > > > > but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> > > > > surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> > > > > executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design
> in
> > > > > surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork
> > > once,
> > > > > fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always
> > > otherwise).
> > > > >
> > > > > wdyt?
> > > > >
> > > > > - Brett
> > > > >
> > > > > On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current
> > > surefire
> > > > > > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working
> > > with
> > > > > > nunit
> > > > > > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have
> > > any
> > > > > > idea how
> > > > > > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > > > > > analyzes the
> > > > > > results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for any help,
> > > > > > Evan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <evanworley@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming
> the
> > > > > >> nunit
> > > > > >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze
> nunit
> > >
> > > > > >> into a
> > > > > >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> > > > > >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to
> have
> > >
> > > > > >> both
> > > > > >> platforms build output consistent.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Evan
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit
> > > nunit in
> > > > > >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Brett
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hi All,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work
> > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > nunit
> > > > > >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit
> > > plugin. Currently
> > > > > >> > > when nunit
> > > > > >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too
> > > much
> > > > > >> > > fun when
> > > > > >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is
> a
> > >
> > > > > >> junit
> > > > > >> > > output
> > > > > >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -- JUNIT --
> > > > > >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > > > > >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > > elapsed:
> > > > > >> > > 0.016 sec
> > > > > >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > > > > >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > > elapsed:
> > > > > >> > > 0.031 sec
> > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > >> > > .
> > > > > >> > > Results :
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -- NUNIT --
> > > > > >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline =
> nunit-console
> > > > > >> C:\dev
> > > > > >> > > \project
> > > > > >> > >
> \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll
> > > /
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > > > > >> > > reformatting and
> > > > > >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >> > > Evan
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, "Passing the NUnit output"...
On 6/7/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Passing the NMaven output to the console is fairly trivial, I did it a few
> days ago. If I remember correctly, when you invoke the CommandLine you can
> specify a StreamConsumer which will consume the lines of output from the
> CommandLine. We can pipe the input that the consumer receives to the maven
> console. I think the more involved task it getting the nunit output where
> we want it.
>
> Evan
>
> On 6/7/07, Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > All of the NUnit code is under a zlib license, so we can modify the
> > nunit-console to do what we want. The issue of how we get .NET output to
> > the
> > output console that Maven is using is a general one that we haven't
> > tackled
> > yet. The IDE gets Maven output by using socket loggers, so that is one
> > approach. I think this is also where log4net may come into play,
> > allowing us
> > to use different appenders to output to sockets, messaging systems, etc,
> > for
> > logging interoperability.
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Brett,
> > >
> > > I think you are right on with the two important issues being how to
> > > identify
> > > the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of the
> > > difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the
> > nunit-console
> > > either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to
> > file. In
> > > the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests are
> > > done,
> > > which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info to
> > > report
> > > from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit fragile. It
> > > seems
> > > that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for java.
> > >
> > > It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute our
> > nunit
> > > tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Evan
> > >
> > > On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes
> > > > (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at
> > all.
> > > > At first glance, it looks possible to me.
> > > >
> > > > The key things are really that:
> > > > a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> > > > b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
> > > >
> > > > Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
> > > > want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests
> > -
> > > > but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> > > > surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> > > > executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in
> > > > surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork
> > once,
> > > > fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always
> > otherwise).
> > > >
> > > > wdyt?
> > > >
> > > > - Brett
> > > >
> > > > On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current
> > surefire
> > > > > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working
> > with
> > > > > nunit
> > > > > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have
> > any
> > > > > idea how
> > > > > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> > > > > plugin
> > > > > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > > > > analyzes the
> > > > > results.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for any help,
> > > > > Evan
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <evanworley@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the
> > > > >> nunit
> > > > >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit
> >
> > > > >> into a
> > > > >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> > > > >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have
> >
> > > > >> both
> > > > >> platforms build output consistent.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Evan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit
> > nunit in
> > > > >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Brett
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi All,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work
> > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > nunit
> > > > >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit
> > plugin. Currently
> > > > >> > > when nunit
> > > > >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too
> > much
> > > > >> > > fun when
> > > > >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a
> >
> > > > >> junit
> > > > >> > > output
> > > > >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -- JUNIT --
> > > > >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > > > >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > elapsed:
> > > > >> > > 0.016 sec
> > > > >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > > > >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time
> > elapsed:
> > > > >> > > 0.031 sec
> > > > >> > > .
> > > > >> > > .
> > > > >> > > .
> > > > >> > > Results :
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -- NUNIT --
> > > > >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console
> > > > >> C:\dev
> > > > >> > > \project
> > > > >> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll
> > /
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > > > >> > > reformatting and
> > > > >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thoughts?
> > > > >> > > Evan
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
Passing the NMaven output to the console is fairly trivial, I did it a few
days ago. If I remember correctly, when you invoke the CommandLine you can
specify a StreamConsumer which will consume the lines of output from the
CommandLine. We can pipe the input that the consumer receives to the maven
console. I think the more involved task it getting the nunit output where
we want it.
Evan
On 6/7/07, Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the NUnit code is under a zlib license, so we can modify the
> nunit-console to do what we want. The issue of how we get .NET output to
> the
> output console that Maven is using is a general one that we haven't
> tackled
> yet. The IDE gets Maven output by using socket loggers, so that is one
> approach. I think this is also where log4net may come into play, allowing
> us
> to use different appenders to output to sockets, messaging systems, etc,
> for
> logging interoperability.
>
> Shane
>
>
> On 6/6/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Brett,
> >
> > I think you are right on with the two important issues being how to
> > identify
> > the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of the
> > difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the nunit-console
> > either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to
> file. In
> > the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests are
> > done,
> > which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info to
> > report
> > from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit fragile. It
> > seems
> > that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for java.
> >
> > It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute our
> nunit
> > tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Evan
> >
> > On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes
> > > (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at all.
> > > At first glance, it looks possible to me.
> > >
> > > The key things are really that:
> > > a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> > > b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
> > >
> > > Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
> > > want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests -
> > > but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
> > >
> > > This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> > > surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> > > executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in
> > > surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork once,
> > > fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always otherwise).
> > >
> > > wdyt?
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > > On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > >
> > > > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
> > > > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working with
> > > > nunit
> > > > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have any
> > > > idea how
> > > > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> > > > plugin
> > > > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > > > analyzes the
> > > > results.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for any help,
> > > > Evan
> > > >
> > > > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the
> > > >> nunit
> > > >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit
> > > >> into a
> > > >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> > > >>
> > > >> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> > > >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have
> > > >> both
> > > >> platforms build output consistent.
> > > >>
> > > >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Evan
> > > >>
> > > >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit
> in
> > > >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Brett
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi All,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > nunit
> > > >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit
> plugin. Currently
> > > >> > > when nunit
> > > >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too
> much
> > > >> > > fun when
> > > >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a
> > > >> junit
> > > >> > > output
> > > >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -- JUNIT --
> > > >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > > >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > > >> > > 0.016 sec
> > > >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > > >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > > >> > > 0.031 sec
> > > >> > > .
> > > >> > > .
> > > >> > > .
> > > >> > > Results :
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -- NUNIT --
> > > >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console
> > > >> C:\dev
> > > >> > > \project
> > > >> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /
> > > >> out
> > > >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > > >> > > reformatting and
> > > >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thoughts?
> > > >> > > Evan
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com>.
All of the NUnit code is under a zlib license, so we can modify the
nunit-console to do what we want. The issue of how we get .NET output to the
output console that Maven is using is a general one that we haven't tackled
yet. The IDE gets Maven output by using socket loggers, so that is one
approach. I think this is also where log4net may come into play, allowing us
to use different appenders to output to sockets, messaging systems, etc, for
logging interoperability.
Shane
On 6/6/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brett,
>
> I think you are right on with the two important issues being how to
> identify
> the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of the
> difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the nunit-console
> either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to file. In
> the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests are
> done,
> which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info to
> report
> from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit fragile. It
> seems
> that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for java.
>
> It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute our nunit
> tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
>
> Thoughts?
> Evan
>
> On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes
> > (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at all.
> > At first glance, it looks possible to me.
> >
> > The key things are really that:
> > a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> > b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
> >
> > Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
> > want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests -
> > but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
> >
> > This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> > surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> > executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in
> > surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork once,
> > fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always otherwise).
> >
> > wdyt?
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> >
> > > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
> > > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working with
> > > nunit
> > > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have any
> > > idea how
> > > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> > > plugin
> > > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > > analyzes the
> > > results.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any help,
> > > Evan
> > >
> > > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the
> > >> nunit
> > >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit
> > >> into a
> > >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> > >>
> > >> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> > >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have
> > >> both
> > >> platforms build output consistent.
> > >>
> > >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Evan
> > >>
> > >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
> > >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> > >> >
> > >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> > >> >
> > >> > - Brett
> > >> >
> > >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi All,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on
> > >> the
> > >> > > nunit
> > >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
> > >> > > when nunit
> > >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
> > >> > > fun when
> > >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a
> > >> junit
> > >> > > output
> > >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -- JUNIT --
> > >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > >> > > 0.016 sec
> > >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > >> > > 0.031 sec
> > >> > > .
> > >> > > .
> > >> > > .
> > >> > > Results :
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -- NUNIT --
> > >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console
> > >> C:\dev
> > >> > > \project
> > >> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /
> > >> out
> > >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > >> > > reformatting and
> > >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thoughts?
> > >> > > Evan
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
Brett,
I think you are right on with the two important issues being how to identify
the tests and the execution model for running the tests. One of the
difficulties in real-time reporting for NMaven is that the nunit-console
either spits to the console or can redirect all of the output to file. In
the later case we wouldn't be able to report until after all tests are done,
which doesn't add much value. In the case of extracting the info to report
from the console, parsing particular strings seems a bit fragile. It seems
that we need some sort of bridge, essentially a NUnit-Runner for java.
It seems as long as we rely on running nunit-console to execute our nunit
tests, it will be difficult to neatly plug into surefire.
Thoughts?
Evan
On 6/5/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes
> (though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at all.
> At first glance, it looks possible to me.
>
> The key things are really that:
> a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
> b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
>
> Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
> want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests -
> but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
>
> This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
> surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
> executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in
> surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork once,
> fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always otherwise).
>
> wdyt?
>
> - Brett
>
> On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
>
> > So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
> > providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working with
> > nunit
> > tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have any
> > idea how
> > we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> > plugin
> > invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> > analyzes the
> > results.
> >
> > Thanks for any help,
> > Evan
> >
> > On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the
> >> nunit
> >> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit
> >> into a
> >> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
> >>
> >> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> >> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have
> >> both
> >> platforms build output consistent.
> >>
> >> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Evan
> >>
> >> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
> >> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> >> >
> >> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> >> >
> >> > - Brett
> >> >
> >> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi All,
> >> > >
> >> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on
> >> the
> >> > > nunit
> >> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
> >> > > when nunit
> >> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
> >> > > fun when
> >> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a
> >> junit
> >> > > output
> >> > > vs nunit output comparison
> >> > >
> >> > > -- JUNIT --
> >> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> >> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> >> > > 0.016 sec
> >> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> >> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> >> > > 0.031 sec
> >> > > .
> >> > > .
> >> > > .
> >> > > Results :
> >> > >
> >> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> >> > >
> >> > > -- NUNIT --
> >> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console
> >> C:\dev
> >> > > \project
> >> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /
> >> out
> >> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> >> > >
> >> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> >> > > reformatting and
> >> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> > > Evan
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Yeah, it's going to take a close look and possibly surefire changes
(though this is the best time to make them) if it is feasible at all.
At first glance, it looks possible to me.
The key things are really that:
a) it can identify where the test sets are from java.
b) how the forking of the test execution is going to work.
Currently the forking is (just) out of alignment with where you'd
want it for NMaven. You'd want it to do that and only run the tests -
but currently the reporting happens in the forked instance too.
This isn't critical, as we could get around this by forcing the
surefire plugin to "never" fork and just fork inside the test
executor - if that works out we could look at shifting the design in
surefire and that would give nunit tests the ability to do fork once,
fork always (instead of what I assume will be fork always otherwise).
wdyt?
- Brett
On 06/06/2007, at 10:40 AM, Evan Worley wrote:
> So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
> providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working with
> nunit
> tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have any
> idea how
> we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit
> plugin
> invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/
> analyzes the
> results.
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Evan
>
> On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the
>> nunit
>> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit
>> into a
>> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
>>
>> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
>> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have
>> both
>> platforms build output consistent.
>>
>> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Evan
>>
>> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
>> >
>> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
>> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
>> >
>> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
>> >
>> > - Brett
>> >
>> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi All,
>> > >
>> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on
>> the
>> > > nunit
>> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
>> > > when nunit
>> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
>> > > fun when
>> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a
>> junit
>> > > output
>> > > vs nunit output comparison
>> > >
>> > > -- JUNIT --
>> > > Running package1.TestClass1
>> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>> > > 0.016 sec
>> > > Running package2.TestClass2
>> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
>> > > 0.031 sec
>> > > .
>> > > .
>> > > .
>> > > Results :
>> > >
>> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>> > >
>> > > -- NUNIT --
>> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console
>> C:\dev
>> > > \project
>> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /
>> out
>> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
>> > >
>> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
>> > > reformatting and
>> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts?
>> > > Evan
>> >
>>
>>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
So I looked into this briefly and it seems that the current surefire
providers rely heavily on java reflection. We will be working with nunit
tests on which we cannot use java reflection. Does anyone have any idea how
we might wrap nunit as a surefire provider? Currently the nunit plugin
invokes a command line which runs the nunit binaries and logs/analyzes the
results.
Thanks for any help,
Evan
On 6/4/07, Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the nunit
> output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit into a
> surefire provider, that would be that much better.
>
> When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
> inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have both
> platforms build output consistent.
>
> I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
>
> Thanks,
> Evan
>
> On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org > wrote:
> >
> > I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
> > as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
> >
> > This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on the
> > > nunit
> > > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
> > > when nunit
> > > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
> > > fun when
> > > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a junit
> > > output
> > > vs nunit output comparison
> > >
> > > -- JUNIT --
> > > Running package1.TestClass1
> > > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > > 0.016 sec
> > > Running package2.TestClass2
> > > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > > 0.031 sec
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Results :
> > >
> > > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> > >
> > > -- NUNIT --
> > > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console C:\dev
> > > \project
> > > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /out
> > > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> > >
> > > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > > reformatting and
> > > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Evan
> >
>
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
Interesting question, I have just been manually transforming the nunit
output to look like the junit. However if we could squeeze nunit into a
surefire provider, that would be that much better.
When you are building the same component in java and C#, these
inconsistencies are very noticeable, so it would be great to have both
platforms build output consistent.
I will look into a nunit surefire provider.
Thanks,
Evan
On 6/4/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
> as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
>
> This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on the
> > nunit
> > plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
> > when nunit
> > tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
> > fun when
> > your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a junit
> > output
> > vs nunit output comparison
> >
> > -- JUNIT --
> > Running package1.TestClass1
> > Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > 0.016 sec
> > Running package2.TestClass2
> > Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> > 0.031 sec
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Results :
> >
> > Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
> >
> > -- NUNIT --
> > NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console C:\dev
> > \project
> > \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /out
> > {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
> >
> > So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> > reformatting and
> > displaying it like the junit plugin does.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Evan
>
Re: NUnit plugin output vs JUnit plugin output
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
I question I'd been meaning to ask - is it possible to fit nunit in
as a surefire provider instead of a separate plugin?
This automatically buys this plus reporting integration.
- Brett
On 05/06/2007, at 1:32 PM, Evan Worley wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was thinking there would be some value in doing some work on the
> nunit
> plugin to add some output similar to the junit plugin. Currently
> when nunit
> tests run, all the output is logged to file. It is not too much
> fun when
> your tests run for a few minutes, you see nothing. Here is a junit
> output
> vs nunit output comparison
>
> -- JUNIT --
> Running package1.TestClass1
> Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> 0.016 sec
> Running package2.TestClass2
> Tests run: 4, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed:
> 0.031 sec
> .
> .
> .
> Results :
>
> Tests run: 139, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> -- NUNIT --
> NMAVEN-040-000: Executed command: Commandline = nunit-console C:\dev
> \project
> \main\component\target\test-assemblies\Namespace.Artifact.dll /out
> {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE} /err {SOME_OUTPUT_FILE}, Result = 0
>
> So I propose not logging the nunit stdout/stderr but rather
> reformatting and
> displaying it like the junit plugin does.
>
> Thoughts?
> Evan