Here is what I want to achieve with xUnit:
Run initialization code.
Run tests in parallel.
Perform teardown.
I have tried [CollectionDefinition]/[Collection]/ICollectionFixture
approach described here but it has disabled the parallel execution, which is critical for me.
Are there any way to run tests in parallel and be able to write global setup/tear-down code in xUnit?
If it is not possible with xUnit, does NUnit or MSUnit support this scenario?
NUnit supports this scenario. For global setup, create a class in one of your root namespaces and add the [SetupFixture] attribute to it. Then add a [OneTimeSetUp] method to that class. This method will get run once for all tests in that namespace and in child namespaces. This allows you to have additional namespace specific onetime setups.
[SetUpFixture]
public class MySetUpClass
{
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void RunBeforeAnyTests()
{
// ...
}
[OneTimeTearDown]
public void RunAfterAnyTests()
{
// ...
}
}
Then to run your tests in parallel, add the [Parallelizable] attribute at the assembly level with the ParallelScope.All. If you have tests that should not be run in parallel with others, you can use the NonParallelizable attribute at lower levels.
[assembly: Parallelizable(ParallelScope.All)]
Running test methods in parallel in NUnit is supported in NUnit 3.7 and later. Prior to that, it only supported running test classes in parallel. I would recommend starting any project with the most recent version of NUnit to take advantages of bug fixes, new features and improvements.
A somewhat basic solution would be static class with a static constructor and subscribing to the AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit event.
public static class StaticFixture
{
static StaticFixture()
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit += (o, e) => Dispose();
// Initialization code here
}
private static void Dispose()
{
// Teardown code here
}
}
There's no guarantee when the static constructor gets called though, other than at or before first use.
I'm trying to create automated tests using NUnit and selenium, however I cannot get the SetUp and TearDown functions to work.
[Binding] [SetUpFixture]
public class AuthenticatorSteps
{
IWebDriver _driver;
WebDriverWait wait;
string username;
string password;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_driver = new ChromeDriver();
wait = new WebDriverWait(_driver, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
}
[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
_driver.Close();
}
[Given(#"I am on the site")]
public void GivenIAmOnTheSite()
{
_driver.Manage().Window.Maximize();
_driver.Navigate().GoToUrl("https://qa02-ukcasino.bedegaming.net");
wait.Until(x => x.FindElement(By.CssSelector(AuthenticatorElements.LoginButton)));
}
They just aren't being called at all. The code I'm using works if I put them inside the steps themselves, however that requires me to add a step eg. Then the browser should close, when I should be able to just use the TearDown function.
Is this a Unit Test?
Change you [SetUpFixture] to be a [TestFixture].
(note: If you are using NUnit 2.5 or great you can remove [TestFixture])
The later is used for one time setups and the former, for setups per test.
Is this a SpecFlow test?
I also assume you have set SpecFlows test runner to be NUnit.
You need to use the BeforeScenario or BeforeFeature attributes, rather than the NUnit ones.
I have inner classes to unit-test instance methods like below.
My problem is when I go to FooClassTests and use VS to run all tests in context, it skips the inner class tests.
If you are using this structure, do you know how can I run all tests together with the ones in the inner classes?
[TestClass]
public class FooClassTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void CanGuardConstructorParameters()
{
// Asserts here
}
[TestClass]
public class DoWorkTests //Tests method DoWork
{
[TestMethod]
public void CanDoTheWork()
{
// Asserts here
}
}
}
Via Visual Studio Runner I don't know but this is supported in NCrunch. This is how I structure all my tests.
See http://www.ncrunch.net/
This guy seems to be using it fine in MS Test too:
http://zendeveloper.blogspot.ie/2012/01/structuring-unit-tests.html
And I am almost certain that these type of tests work in resharper's test runner.
When Visual Studio is running unit tests, it runs many tests simultaneously. What exactly is the scope of the test class while these are running. Are they all run in separate app domains or is data shared at all?
For instance if I have the following test class:
[TestClass]
public class FooTests
{
Mock<ISomeInterface1> _complexMock1;
Mock<ISomeInterface2> _complexMock2;
public void CreateComplexMocks()
{
//set up _complexMock1 & _complexMock2
}
[TestMethod]
public void Test1()
{
CreateComplexMocks();
//use _complexMock1 & _complexMock2 in test
}
[TestMethod]
public void Test2()
{
CreateComplexMocks();
//use _complexMock1 & _complexMock2 in test
}
}
The tests utilise the CreateComplexMocks() helper to construct some mocks. These are exposed as members rather than being passed back to the test (there would probably be many more in a real world example)
My question is, if both tests run at the same time, will they be sharing the state of _complexMock1 and _complexMock2?
What if the complexMocks were static?
Having found this blog, it would appear that a separate test class is instantiated for every test, on a different thread.
So instance members will not be shared, but static members will.
In your example you should create your mocks in the [TestInitialize] method.
By this every time a test would run your mocks would be created again.
[TestInitialize]
public void TestInit()
{
CreateComplexMocks();
}
I am attempting to unit test a WCF host management engine that I have written. The engine basically creates ServiceHost instances on the fly based on configuration. This allows us to dynamically reconfigure which services are available without having to bring all of them down and restart them whenever a new service is added or an old one is removed.
I have run into a difficulty in unit testing this host management engine, however, due to the way ServiceHost works. If a ServiceHost has already been created, opened, and not yet closed for a particular endpoint, another ServiceHost for the same endpoint can not be created, resulting in an exception. Because of the fact that modern unit testing platforms parallelize their test execution, I have no effective way to unit test this piece of code.
I have used xUnit.NET, hoping that because of its extensibility, I could find a way to force it to run the tests serially. However, I have not had any luck. I am hoping that someone here on SO has encountered a similar issue and knows how to get unit tests to run serially.
NOTE: ServiceHost is a WCF class, written by Microsoft. I don't have the ability to change it's behavior. Hosting each service endpoint only once is also the proper behavior...however, it is not particularly conducive to unit testing.
Each test class is a unique test collection and tests under it will run in sequence, so if you put all of your tests in same collection then it will run sequentially.
In xUnit you can make following changes to achieve this:
Following will run in parallel:
namespace IntegrationTests
{
public class Class1
{
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test1 called");
}
[Fact]
public void Test2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test2 called");
}
}
public class Class2
{
[Fact]
public void Test3()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test3 called");
}
[Fact]
public void Test4()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test4 called");
}
}
}
To make it sequential you just need to put both the test classes under same collection:
namespace IntegrationTests
{
[Collection("Sequential")]
public class Class1
{
[Fact]
public void Test1()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test1 called");
}
[Fact]
public void Test2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test2 called");
}
}
[Collection("Sequential")]
public class Class2
{
[Fact]
public void Test3()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test3 called");
}
[Fact]
public void Test4()
{
Console.WriteLine("Test4 called");
}
}
}
For more info you can refer to this link
Important: This answer applies to .NET Framework. For dotnet core, see Dimitry's answer regarding xunit.runner.json.
All good unit tests should be 100% isolated. Using shared state (e.g. depending on a static property that is modified by each test) is regarded as bad practice.
Having said that, your question about running xUnit tests in sequence does have an answer! I encountered exactly the same issue because my system uses a static service locator (which is less than ideal).
By default xUnit 2.x runs all tests in parallel. This can be modified per-assembly by defining the CollectionBehavior in your AssemblyInfo.cs in your test project.
For per-assembly separation use:
using Xunit;
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(CollectionBehavior.CollectionPerAssembly)]
or for no parallelization at all use:
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]
The latter is probably the one you want. More information about parallelisation and configuration can be found on the xUnit documentation.
For .NET Core projects, create xunit.runner.json with:
{
"parallelizeAssembly": false,
"parallelizeTestCollections": false
}
Also, your csproj should contain
<ItemGroup>
<None Update="xunit.runner.json">
<CopyToOutputDirectory>PreserveNewest</CopyToOutputDirectory>
</None>
</ItemGroup>
For old .Net Core projects, your project.json should contain
"buildOptions": {
"copyToOutput": {
"include": [ "xunit.runner.json" ]
}
}
For .NET Core projects, you can configure xUnit with an xunit.runner.json file, as documented at https://xunit.net/docs/configuration-files.
The setting you need to change to stop parallel test execution is parallelizeTestCollections, which defaults to true:
Set this to true if the assembly is willing to run tests inside this assembly in parallel against each other. ... Set this to false to disable all parallelization within this test assembly.
JSON schema type: boolean
Default value: true
So a minimal xunit.runner.json for this purpose looks like
{
"parallelizeTestCollections": false
}
As noted in the docs, remember to include this file in your build, either by:
Setting Copy to Output Directory to Copy if newer in the file's Properties in Visual Studio, or
Adding
<Content Include=".\xunit.runner.json">
<CopyToOutputDirectory>PreserveNewest</CopyToOutputDirectory>
</Content>
to your .csproj file, or
Adding
"buildOptions": {
"copyToOutput": {
"include": [ "xunit.runner.json" ]
}
}
to your project.json file
depending upon your project type.
Finally, in addition to the above, if you're using Visual Studio then make sure that you haven't accidentally clicked the Run Tests In Parallel button, which will cause tests to run in parallel even if you've turned off parallelisation in xunit.runner.json. Microsoft's UI designers have cunningly made this button unlabelled, hard to notice, and about a centimetre away from the "Run All" button in Test Explorer, just to maximise the chance that you'll hit it by mistake and have no idea why your tests are suddenly failing:
This is old question but I wanted to write a solution to people searching newly like me :)
Note: I use this method in Dot Net Core WebUI integration tests with xunit version 2.4.1.
Create an empty class named NonParallelCollectionDefinitionClass and then give CollectionDefinition attribute to this class as below. (The important part is DisableParallelization = true setting.)
using Xunit;
namespace WebUI.IntegrationTests.Common
{
[CollectionDefinition("Non-Parallel Collection", DisableParallelization = true)]
public class NonParallelCollectionDefinitionClass
{
}
}
After then add Collection attribute to the class which you don't want it to run in parallel as below. (The important part is name of collection. It must be same with name used in CollectionDefinition)
namespace WebUI.IntegrationTests.Controllers.Users
{
[Collection("Non-Parallel Collection")]
public class ChangePassword : IClassFixture<CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup>>
...
When we do this, firstly other parallel tests run. After that the other tests which has Collection("Non-Parallel Collection") attribute run.
you can Use Playlist
right click on the test method -> Add to playlist -> New playlist
then you can specify the execution order, the default is, as you add them to the play list but you can change the playlist file as you want
I don't know the details, but it sounds like you might be trying to do integration testing rather than unit testing. If you could isolate the dependency on ServiceHost, that would likely make your testing easier (and faster). So (for instance) you might test the following independently:
Configuration reading class
ServiceHost factory (possibly as an integration test)
Engine class that takes an IServiceHostFactory and an IConfiguration
Tools that would help include isolation (mocking) frameworks and (optionally) IoC container frameworks. See:
http://www.mockobjects.com/
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ListOfNETDependencyInjectionContainersIOC.aspx
Maybe you can use Advanced Unit Testing. It allows you to define the sequence in which you run the test. So you may have to create a new cs file to host those tests.
Here's how you can bend the test methods to work in the sequence you want.
[Test]
[Sequence(16)]
[Requires("POConstructor")]
[Requires("WorkOrderConstructor")]
public void ClosePO()
{
po.Close();
// one charge slip should be added to both work orders
Assertion.Assert(wo1.ChargeSlipCount==1,
"First work order: ChargeSlipCount not 1.");
Assertion.Assert(wo2.ChargeSlipCount==1,
"Second work order: ChargeSlipCount not 1.");
...
}
Do let me know whether it works.
None of the suggested answers so far worked for me. I have a dotnet core app with XUnit 2.4.1.
I achieved the desired behavior with a workaround by putting a lock in each unit test instead. In my case, I didn't care about running order, just that tests were sequential.
public class TestClass
{
[Fact]
void Test1()
{
lock (this)
{
//Test Code
}
}
[Fact]
void Test2()
{
lock (this)
{
//Test Code
}
}
}
For me, in .Net Core Console application, when I wanted to run test methods ( not classes ) synchronously, the only solution which worked was this described in this blog:
xUnit: Control the Test Execution Order
I've added the attribute [Collection("Sequential")] in a base class:
namespace IntegrationTests
{
[Collection("Sequential")]
public class SequentialTest : IDisposable
...
public class TestClass1 : SequentialTest
{
...
}
public class TestClass2 : SequentialTest
{
...
}
}