Running XUnit Tests, Using Traits, and Leveraging Parallelism

We have arrived at the end of this little series on migrating unit tests from MSTest to XUnit (specifically, XUnit 2). While earlier posts concentrated on writing the tests and the XUnit counterparts to MSTest concepts, this post will briefly look at some non-code aspects to XUnit; most importantly, we will look at getting the tests to run.

Do not depend on test order
One thing to watch out for after migrating your tests is the order in which tests are run. MSTest allowed us to abuse testing by assuming that tests would run in a specific order. XUnit does away with this and will run tests in a random order. This can help to find some obscure bugs, but it can also make migration a little tougher, especially when tests share a data store or some other test fixture. Watch out for that.

Visual Studio

Running tests inside Visual Studio is really simple. Following in the footsteps of web development trends, rather than requiring an extension to the development environment, XUnit uses package management1. All you need to do is add the Visual Studio XUnit test runner package to your project and Visual Studio will be able to detect and run your XUnit tests just like your old MSTests.

Of course, if you're like me and absolutely loathe the built-in Visual Studio test explorer, you can use Resharper (or dotCover), which has built-in support for XUnit.

Command Line

More often than not, our continuous integration setups are scripted and we're unlikely to be running our unit tests via the development tool, such as Visual Studio. For situations like this, you can add the XUnit command line test runner package to your project. This provides a command line utility for running your tests with arguments to control exactly what tests and how2.

Once the package has been added, you can browse to where Nuget is storing packages for your particular project. In the tools folder of the console runner package folder, you will find xunit.console.exe. If you run this with the -? argument, you will get some helpful information.

The three options I use the most are -trait, -notrait, and -parallel.

Traits

The two trait options control what tests you are running based on metadata attached to those tests. This is really useful if you have some tests that are resource heavy and only used in certain circumstances, such as stress testing. In MSTest, you could attach arbitrary metadata onto test methods using the TestProperty attribute. XUnit provides a similar feature using Trait. For example, [Trait("Category", "ManualOnly")] could be used to put a method into the ManualOnly category. You could then use the following line to execute tests that lack this trait.

If you wanted to only run tests with a specific trait, you do the same thing but with -trait instead. Both of these options are very useful when combined with -parallel.

Parallelism

XUnit can run tests in parallel, but tests within the same collection are never run in parallel with each other. By default, each test class is its own collection. Test classes can be combined into collections using the Collection attribute. Tests within the same collection will be executed randomly, but never in parallel.

The -parallel option provides four options: no parallelism, running tests from different assemblies in parallel, running tests from different collections in parallel, or running tests from different assemblies and different collections in parallel.

The difference between assembly parallelism, collection parallelism, and both together

Let's assume you have two assemblies, A and B. Assembly A has three collections; 1, 2, and 3. Assembly B has three collections; 4, 5, and 6.

No Parallelism
-parallel none

XUnit will run each collection in one of the assemblies, one at a time, then run each collection in the other assembly one at a time.

Collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 will never execute at the same time as each other.

Parallel Assemblies
-parallel assemblies

XUnit will run each collection in assembly A, one at a time, at the same time as running each collection in assembly B, one at a time.

Collections 1, 2, and 3 will not execute at the same time as each other; Collections 4, 5, and 6 will not execute at the same time as each other; but collections 1, 2, and 3 will execute in parallel with 4, 5, and 6, as the 1, 2, and 3 are in a different assembly to 4, 5, and 6.

Parallel Collections
-parallel collections

XUnit will run each collection within an assembly in parallel, but only one assembly at a time.

Collections 1, 2 and 3 will execute parallel; collections 4, 5, and 6 will execute in parallel; but, 1, 2, and 3 will not run at the same time as 4, 5, and 6.

Parallel Everything
-parallel all

XUnit will run each collection in parallel, regardless of its assembly.

Collections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 will run in parallel, each potentially running at the same time as any other.

Beware running tests in parallel when first migrating from MSTest. It is a surefire way of finding some heinous test fixture dependencies and you risk thinks like deadlocking on resources. Usually, running assemblies in parallel is a lot safer than running collections in parallel, assuming that tests are collocated in assemblies based on their purpose and the resources they interact with.

In Conclusion…

That brings us to the end of the series. I have focused primarily on migrating from MSTest, leaving out a lot of the nuances to XUnit. I highly recommend continuing your education with the XUnit documentation and through experimentation; having personally migrated several projects, I know you won't regret it.

 


  1. I love this approach to augmenting the development environment. It requires no additional tooling setup to get your dev environment working. The source itself controls the tooling versions and installation. Wonderful 

  2. You can control how tests run under MSBuild too by using various properties. This is discussed more on the XUnit site 

Getting Information About Your Git Repository With C#

During a hackathon not so long ago, I wanted to incorporate some source control data into my .NET assembly version information for the purposes of troubleshooting installations, making it easier for people to report the code in which they found a bug, and making it easier for people to find the code in which a bug was found1. The plan was to automatically encode the branch, the commit hash, and whether there were local commits or local changes into the AssemblyConfiguration attribute of my assemblies during the build.

At the time, I hacked together the RepositoryInformation class below that wraps the command line tool to extract the required information. This class supported detecting if the directory is a repository, checking for local commits and changes, getting the branch name and the name of the upstream branch, and enumerating the log. Though it felt a little wrong just wrapping the command line (and seemed pretty fragile too), it worked. Unfortunately, it was dependent on git being installed on the build system; I would prefer the build to get everything it needs using package management like NuGet and npm2.

If I were to approach this again today, I would use the LibGit2Sharp NuGet package or something similar3. Below is an updated version of RepositoryInformation that uses LibGit2Sharp instead of git command line. Clearly, you could forego any type of wrapper for LibGit2Sharp and I probably would if I were incorporating this into a bigger task like the one I originally had planned.

I have yet to use any of this outside of my hackathon work or this blog entry, but now that I have resurrected it from my library of coding exploits past to write about, I might just resurrect the original plans I had too. Whether that happens or not, I hope you found this useful or at least a little interesting; if so, or if you have some suggestions related to this post, please let me know in the comments.


  1. Sometimes, like a squirrel, you want to know which branch you were on 

  2. I had looked at NuGet packages when I was working on the original hackathon project, but had decided not to use one for some reason or another (perhaps the available packages did not do everything I wanted at that time)  

  3. PowerShell could be a viable replacement for my initial approach, but it would suffer from the same issue of needing git on the build system; by using a NuGet package, the build includes everything it needs