Move generated files outside of project source #1983
Conversation
|
This PR replaces #1691 |
|
It looks like the build failure might be transient. Is there any way to run the failed test again? |
|
Since another fix, we get this kind of error sometimes in our CI pipeline. No idea yet why. You can ignore it. I will try to find some time on Monday/Tuesday to review the PR. |
SpecFlow.Tools.MsBuild.Generation/build/SpecFlow.Tools.MsBuild.Generation.targets
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
I tried out the latest version of this PR. I have here a solution where I tested it. It has projects for every unit test framework in old and SDK- style project format. As far as I know and remember the test explorer has some code for SpecFlow to make this navigation work. What I don't know if this depends on the When I tested it for the old project format, I also saw, that the code-behind file is not generated in the |
|
Thanks for checking it out, @SabotageAndi. The failure to generate feature-files for classic project formats is pretty unexpected. I'm going to guess that the property I've tried to use wasn't defined in the MSBuild version you used; it should be an easy fix using different MSBuild props. I will focus on getting this working first. When I tested locally, the source-link was working for SDK-style projects; I did not test for classic projects. I will have to try repeating my tests locally. I thought this was driven primarily by having a |
|
Interesting. Which VS Version are you using? |
|
I'm using Visual Studio Professional 2019 (16.6.0) |
|
I've cloned and built the master branch of the test project as a baseline. In the cases where source link is working, I can see Looking at the files being generated by my branch, there are no Is there something specifically required to have these directives emitted? If I can see it in production use, I'm wondering if I've unexpectedly tripped this behaviour. |
|
Is there anything external contributors can do to assist with this issue? |
|
The outstanding issue is having the Visual Studio Test Explorer be able to link the test to its source source (the .scenario file). If anybody could produce a source file in the |
| <Target Name="CleanGeneratedSpecFlowCodeBehindFiles"> | ||
| <Delete Files="$(SpecFlowCodeBehindOutputPath)**/*$(DefaultLanguageSourceExtension)" ContinueOnError="true" /> | ||
| </Target> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than manually deleting the files, consider adding them to FileWrites item (in addition to Compile). MSBuild will take care of deleting them when needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not familiar with this item group. An initial read of the documents suggests some possibly timing issues about when these files are generated, but otherwise it looks like a great enhancement to consider.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I second this suggestion. It might be worth taking a look over how AssemblyInfo.cs is generated, as it's a similar pattern wanted here:
https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/db74337457686f042cebdcb613b47fb5d2f14342/src/Tasks/Microsoft.NET.Build.Tasks/targets/Microsoft.NET.GenerateAssemblyInfo.targets
In time we could adopt a similar caching mechanism, to avoid rewriting files at build when none of the inputs have changed.
You'll see the file path is $(IntermediateOutputPath)$(MSBuildProjectName).AssemblyInfo$(DefaultLanguageSourceExtension), and it adds the generated .cs file to Compile & FileWrites items.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incremental support would be quite easy to add by declaring inputs and outputs on the GenerateSpecFlowCodeBehindFiles target. It's something I had intended to add once the generation process worked reliably, but introduces additional complexity in the meantime.
| @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| <PropertyGroup> | |||
| <SpecFlowCodeBehindOutputPath Condition="'$(SpecFlowCodeBehindOutputPath)' == ''">$(BaseIntermediateOutputPath)Features.Generated\</SpecFlowCodeBehindOutputPath> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is better to use IntermediateOutputPath to avoid any conflicts between different configurations. It points to configuration specific folder inside BaseIntermediateOutputPath.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe there was an issue with doing so, and I agree it would be preferable. My primary focus is getting this process to work with the Test Explorer, but will be happy to examine this aspect again once that is resolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The issue is props file is imported early and IntermediateOutputPath will not be set. It will work if you move this to targets file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would create a problem trying to include the generated files in the CustomAddtionalCompileInputs item group, which is part of the fast-update check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is CustomAdditonalCompileInputs for? I don't see it being consumed anywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a CustomAdditionalCompileInputs item group defined in Microsoft.CSharp.Core.targets and the CoreCompile target depends on this. It is used to enable incremental builds as part of the FastUpdateCheck target, which is used only by Visual Studio and not command-line builds.
If these targets and groups are not catered for, situations arise where builds are considered "up-to-date" by Visual Studio and the build process is skipped entirely until a rebuild is forced.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting, I never came across it. But if CoreCompile consumes it then that can also be moved to targets file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you try moving this and CustomAdditionalCompileInputs etc. to targets file?
|
The issue here I think is because the files are generated at build time and Test Explorer does not read the pdb. This can be confirmed by opening the generated files in visual studio, you will notice that the files are not part of any project. The code generation needs to happen at design time for test explorer to recognize them. This also means that the files will be generated whenever the feature file is saved. |
The current code-generation also runs at build-time, but generates the files within the scope of the source files. What makes you believe the PDB is the issue? Could you demonstrate this? |
|
I am not saying PDB is the issue. When files are generated at build time, Visual Studio does not know they are part of project. This can be proved by opening the generated files in Visual Studio and the project dropdown on the top left of the editor window showing 'Miscellaneous Files'. Since the generated files are not part of project, Test Explorer is also not able to find the source of the test. I tried this in a different way and it partially works. Currently the code generation targets run before the |
|
At present, everything works correctly with this feature branch except the navigation to source in Test Explorer. The expectation is that the explorer should link to the feature file, not the generated files, but this is proving to be nearly impossible to diagnose without having a deeper understanding of the test explorer itself. |
|
A shameless nerd-snipe, but I wonder if @nohwnd can help us with understanding how the navigation with Test Explorer works or can point us in the direction of someone who can. |
|
Is there a simple repro we can use to investigate this? @shyamnamboodiripad Is there a way to redirect the test object to a different source than the one that is used to run the test? I doubt there is. If there isn't should this be made part of the FQN effort? |
|
There's no simple repro for this at the moment, but I could create a repo which simulates the generator:
The current SpecFlow generation process (which includes the generated files within the source tree) does link correctly via the Test Explorer. We'd like to be able to hook into that same process. |
When I tried with the changes in this PR, Test Explorer did not even show the feature file name that the test was generated from. I got it to show the feature file name and line number. |
|
I got this working. Initially I tried my changes in master branch. When I applied my changes on top of this PR, navigation from Test Explorer to feature file worked exactly as expected. |
Can you identify which changes specifically made a difference or provide a working branch? |
…SpecFlowOSS#2667) * BindingInvoker changed to pass AggregateExceptions through. Use of 'PreserveStackTrace' replaced with call to ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture. BindingInvoker unit tests added to validate handling of various combinations of exceptions thrown from sync and async StepDefinition methods. * BindingInvoker now passes AggregateExceptions along up the call chain. BindingInvoker changed to pass AggregateExceptions through. Use of 'PreserveStackTrace' replaced with call to ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture. BindingInvoker unit tests added to validate handling of various combinations of exceptions thrown from sync and async StepDefinition methods. TestExecutionEngine updated to also use ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture().Throw() in order to preserve the stack trace of user-hook's exception.
…uring test execution (SpecFlowOSS#2663) * Refactor BindingSourceProcessor to collect binding errors * Fix BindingSourceProcessorStub * Add tests & fixes * collect type load errors * Extend changelog * Replace tuple with a class on the IBindingRegistry interface
…subsequent binding method invocations (SpecFlowOSS#2658) * first idea to fix SpecFlowOSS#2600 * Improve idea to work on .NET 4 * Make BindingInvoker work with Task<T> * fix execution for failing binding methods * Keep ExecutionContext in ScenarioContext * Cleanup unit tests
The sentence "Shouldn't have a return type or have `Task` as return type." can be read in two ways: 1. Should not have a return type nor return `Task` 2. Should not have a return type OR should return `Task` So a minor change to make it more clear and direct.
* Add support for Rule Backgrounds. Preliminary commit. Lacks tests. * Add support for Rule Backgrounds.Revised Commit to simplify approach and code. Lacks tests. * Refactored signature of method: UnitTestMethodGenerator.GenerateTestMethodBody to accept a ScenarioDefinitionInFeatureFile instead of an AST Scenario. This allows simpler tracking of the relationship between Scenario and Rule. Refactored Rule Background support in ScenarioPartHelper to simplify the code and accept changes suggested during PR review. * Adding a feature file in the Specs tests to demonstrate a Feature with multiple Rules, each having a Background; the Background steps should only be executed for the Scenario(s) within their respective Rule. * Further simplification of Rule support in SPH by merging two private methods together. * Corrected feature's binding code. Tests now pass. * Updating changelog * Reverting this feature back to the version present in SpecFlowOSS/SpecFlow. * Refactored/revised to improve readabliity and formatting Co-authored-by: Gáspár Nagy <gaspar.nagy@gmail.com>
|
After 10,000 years, I have returned to make this work. I have merged everything from master to make this PR up-to-date and without conflicts and now all the automated checks have passed successfully. 👍 |
|
@SabotageAndi As it's been a very long time in-progress, is there anything new or different that you'd like me to do in order to progress this PR? |
|
@Tragedian yeah, very long time. And now a bad timing. |
In that case, may I wish you the best of fortune in wherever you should go next. Is there anybody left maintaining this project in your absence? |
|
Tbh, I don't know. I started the process of handover, but there wasn't much progress until I left. |
|
What about implementing It seems all of the MSBuild manipulation could go away? |
I think this would be an excellent longer-term goal for the SpecFlow project, but it would be a much bigger piece of work to implement a new generator pattern than changing where the current generator outputs its generated sources. |
|
@Code-Grump I have just scanned through this conversation, but it is pretty long. Could you please give a brief status of this PR? I am now interested on these:
|
I have no outstanding items that I'm aware of. Really just needs some input from real user experiences.
The test-explorer navigation now works the same as my current experience; the test explorer takes you to the feature file related to the test-run.
There is no way to switch to the old behaviour with this current implementation. It could be added via an MSBuild property, but the changes are significant enough that I would probably want to create a new branch and re-implement my changes. |
|
@Code-Grump Thank you for the summary. I agree that getting feedback from broader user base would be useful as this is a bigger change. So my suggestion would be not to include it to v4.0 as it would delay the release too much, but immediately after v4.0 is out we should merge this and release as v4.1 beta, to get more feedback. Don't worry about the opt-out setting yet, we can decide on it based on the v4.1 beta feedback. Thanks for the contribution, this is a very good feature. I also don't like having the generated files in the feature's folder. |
Removes the generated codebehind files from the project structure. Generated files are now written to a subdirectory in the /obj/ folder.
There will need to be some advice given on upgrading, i.e. all feature.cs files should be removed from the project folders, and the documentation at https://specflow.org/documentation/Generate-Tests-from-MsBuild/ could possibly benefit from some information about the few properties available to customize the process.
Types of changes
Checklist: