Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] Enable VS unit tests in CI #954

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Feb 11, 2016
Merged

[WIP] Enable VS unit tests in CI #954

merged 16 commits into from
Feb 11, 2016

Conversation

dsyme
Copy link
Contributor

@dsyme dsyme commented Feb 9, 2016

This enables the VisualFSharp.Unittests suite in CI. All tests except ignored and "Expensive" (approx > 15sec) are run.

@dsyme dsyme changed the title Enable VS unit tests in CI [WIP] Enable VS unit tests in CI Feb 10, 2016
@dsyme
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyme commented Feb 10, 2016

Please don't merge this yet.

It's very strange - all tests are passing on my local machine, but we have 500 failures in AppVeyor. https://ci.appveyor.com/project/KevinRansom/visualfsharp-radou/build/0.0.1.1530/job/dyvijxk5sri13vm3/tests in the VisualFSharp.Unittests IDE suite.

However equally we have 2000 passing tests in that suite, so it's not a totally catastrophic error. Strangely I can't see any specific diagnostics in the failing tests that indicate the problem: every test is just of the "failed to find the right intellisense completion" sort of error. Help appreciated.

I've turned on as much logging as possible and made the build.cmd ignore the overall failure so we can collect logs via artifacts as well, e.g. https://ci.appveyor.com/project/KevinRansom/visualfsharp-radou/build/0.0.1.1530/job/dyvijxk5sri13vm3/artifacts.

However I'm going to have to keep throwing slight variations at AppVeyor to try to work out what's going wrong.

@dsyme
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyme commented Feb 10, 2016

@enricosada pointed out that we can remote-desktop to the AppVeyor machine https://www.appveyor.com/docs/how-to/rdp-to-build-worker

I will do that.

on_finish:
- ps: $blockRdp = $true; iex ((new-object net.webclient).DownloadString('https://raw.githubusercontent.com/appveyor/ci/master/scripts/enable-rdp.ps1'))

@dsyme
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyme commented Feb 11, 2016

OK, the failing tests were due to LF (not CRLF) being used on AppVeyor checkout for the test files under vsintegration...

I've added a vsintegration.gitattributes to force CRLF under vsintegration (these are Windows-only files after all), hopefully that will do the trick

@dsyme
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyme commented Feb 11, 2016

Ugh, so AppVeyor decides to use LF by default. How silly, I have no idea why it is doing that for a Windows-based CI system.

This fixes that. What a waste of time!

init:
  - git config --global core.autocrlf true

Hopefully this will now go through

@dsyme
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsyme commented Feb 11, 2016

I'll merge this, we're green on AppVeyor at last! That means AppVeyor is now running all unit test suties (apart from "Expensive"). The Jenkins debug build timed out

@dsyme dsyme closed this Feb 11, 2016
@dsyme dsyme reopened this Feb 11, 2016
dsyme added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2016
[WIP] Enable VS unit tests in CI
@dsyme dsyme merged commit cc98a13 into dotnet:master Feb 11, 2016
@enricosada
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 🎉 🎉 🎉

@enricosada
Copy link
Contributor

Ugh, so AppVeyor decides to use LF by default. How silly, I have no idea why it is doing that for a Windows-based CI system

@dsyme that's should not be a problem with a .gitattributes file, it's strange (or file are committed before .gitattributes and used a different line ending in git). I'll check

@ctaggart
Copy link
Contributor

Why do the tests fail due to LF? Why not fix the tests instead of changing core.autocrlf? Which types of files must be CRLF? Not .fs files. Perhaps .sln files. Better to update .gitattributes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants