Re: [dotNetRDF-Develop] TeamCity for dotNetRDF revisit

[Tomasz P. <tom...@gm...>]

Hi again Rob

There is one more thing about unit tests. I have noticed that you
commonly use a same name for multiple tests and just append a number.
It would be much more helpful if they had meaningful names so that
when one fails it is instantly obvious why. For example
ParsingTurtleW3CBaseTurtleStyle1 would become
ShouldSuccessfullyParseValidW3CBaseTurtleStyle. Similarily
ParsingTurtleW3CBaseTurtleStyle2 would become
ShouldThrowWhenBaseDirectiveIsMissingDot and so on.

Would you be okay with me gradually renaming any tests I think can
have a better name?

Thanks,
Tom

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Tomasz Pluskiewicz
<tom...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Rob
>
> Some time we discussed setting up continous integration for dotNetRDF.
> I am upgrading my VPS to a more powerful machine and I have already
> set up TeamCity. It will also be possible to install some triplestores
> for integration testing.
>
> However I'm hitting a wall with unit tests because you use MSTest.
> Would you be fine with me converting to NUnit? That way TeamCity will
> run without installing Visual Studio and VS Express users will also be
> able to build the whole solution. Also I think we could ask JetBrains
> for ReSharper licence for our project (in case you would ask about
> running the test suite from within VS). Oh and by the way, with the
> introduction of NUnit there can be a lot less code for similar tests,
> which can be parametrized. I assume you know the TestCase attribute.
>
> When TeamCity builds are running I think we should also automate NuGet
> publishing. For that some changes will be needed to have automatic
> version numbering. Also you would have to explain how you nuget pack
> dotNetRDF. In a separate email maybe.
>
> Also I thought that maybe there could be two flavors of those
> packages. One as usual for stable builds and a new one, which would
> publish automatically for each successful build. What do you think?
>
> A thing to consider here is moving to a dedicated branch for release
> development and leaving default only for bugfixes.
>
> Any thoughs?
>
> Thanks
> Tom