June 4, 2007 Tools

TestDriven.Net FitNesse Runner

I would like to introduce a new plugin to TestDriven.NET.  This test runner executes FitNesse tests.

fitrunner

Notice the attribute FitNesseUrl above.  This specifies what page the runner should execute.

CropperCapture[8]

The output of the test is a little different than what you get with a unit test: the metrics are page based.  I have included a link to the live FitNesse url as well as a static html report of the test run.  Of course the Test With menu items work with this so you can Debug and get code coverage.

There is no installer yet.  Heck the TestDriven.NET FitNesse Runner has no home.  Until it gets a home here is the binary and here is the source.  To use it just reference it (and Program Files\TestDriven.NET 2.0\TestDriven.Framework.dll) from your fit fixture project and include this assembly level attribute:

[assembly: CustomTestRunner(GetType(TestRunner.FitTestRunner))]

This attribute clues TestDriven.NET into what runner to use.  Once we get an installer we can create the registry entries that are normally used to clue TestDriven.NET into what runner to use.

Where do you think the FitNesse plugin’s home should be?

3,509 Total Views

3 to “TestDriven.Net FitNesse Runner”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] Where does this put MSTest?  On par with an older version of NUnit and TestDriven.NET.  Don’t get me wrong I commend the MSTest team for making these changes and heading in the right direction.  Will these changes get me to use MSTest?  Not willingly.  TestDriven.NET and MbUnit are far superior.  I want to use the best tools available to me.  The biggest difference to me is that TD.NET and MbUnit are extremely extensible.  There easy to extent as well.  I have written several extension for MbUnit including an object provider fixture and with Jamie’s help a FitNesse runner for TD.NET.  Being able to write extensions is critical to MSTest, I believe more so than it is for MbUnit or NUnit.  Microsoft releases software on a much large time scale than the Open Source community.  Both MbUnit and NUnit have made several releases since the last release, only release, of MSTest.  Oddly for free MbUnit/cheap TD.NET I get more value on a more frequent basis.  One would think that for the money that MSTest costs you would get everything that TD.NET and MbUnit had to offer and more. [...]

  1. JayFlowers > What do MSTest and a congested highway have in common? says...

    [...] Where does this put MSTest?  On par with an older version of NUnit and TestDriven.NET.  Don’t get me wrong I commend the MSTest team for making these changes and heading in the right direction.  Will these changes get me to use MSTest?  Not willingly.  TestDriven.NET and MbUnit are far superior.  I want to use the best tools available to me.  The biggest difference to me is that TD.NET and MbUnit are extremely extensible.  There easy to extent as well.  I have written several extension for MbUnit including an object provider fixture and with Jamie’s help a FitNesse runner for TD.NET.  Being able to write extensions is critical to MSTest, I believe more so than it is for MbUnit or NUnit.  Microsoft releases software on a much large time scale than the Open Source community.  Both MbUnit and NUnit have made several releases since the last release, only release, of MSTest.  Oddly for free MbUnit/cheap TD.NET I get more value on a more frequent basis.  One would think that for the money that MSTest costs you would get everything that TD.NET and MbUnit had to offer and more. [...]

  2. Paul R says...

    Hi Jay. Great post. I’ve set up a FitNesse test following your instructions, but when i attempt to run it using TestDriven.NET I get the following exception in the FitNesse results page:

    System.ApplicationException: Type ‘import’ could not be found in assemblies.
    Assemblies searched:
    at fit.ObjectFactory.GetInstance(TypeName typeName, Assembly assembly, Type type)
    at fit.ObjectFactory.GetTypeOrInstance(TypeName typeName, GetTypeOrInstanceDelegate getTypeOrInstance)
    at fit.ObjectFactory.CreateInstance(String submittedName)
    at fit.Fixture.LoadFixture(String className)
    at fit.Fixture.DoTables(Parse tables)

    The same test runs just fine in IE. Any ideas?

    Thanks.

  3. jflowers says...

    Paul,
    I would try to compile the source against your version of fit. Your version might have changes that need accounting for. The source is very minimal and should not be too difficult to get to compile.

    Jay

Leave a comment

*

here