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

Add support for .xctestproducts and Test Plan #606

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 16, 2023

Conversation

DavidAsulin1
Copy link
Contributor

Description

In this PR, I suggest adding support for the .xctestproducts package in XCTest. As I described in issue #583, using xctestproducts is more suitable for CI and also supports the Test Plan feature.

Currently, in order to export the test products, one needs to package the Derived Data and the .xctestrun file. After this change, the user can choose to upload the xctestproducts package, and we will detect it internally.

One additional change on the UI side is regarding the Test Plan name. In case the test type is XCTest, the user can enter the test plan name, which we will use if the test package is of type xctestproducts.

If we decide to proceed with this change, the Wiki page will need to be updated.

Linked GitHub issue ID: #583

Pull Request Checklist

  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Code compiles correctly with all tests are passed.
  • I've read the contributing guide and followed the recommended practices.
  • Wikis or README have been reviewed and added / updated if needed (for bug fixes / features)

Does this introduce a breaking change?

If this introduces a breaking change for Hydra Lab users, please describe the impact and migration path.

  • Yes
  • No

How you tested it

I test the change locally by uploading xctestproducts package and by choosing different test plans to execute

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Technical design
  • Build related changes
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
  • Code style update (formatting, renaming) or Documentation content changes
  • Other (please describe):

@hydraxman
Copy link
Member

@DavidAsulin1 Again, thank you for the contribution, on behalf of the team.

Would you mind adding a UT that can cover the changed branches in the code?

@zhou9584
Copy link
Contributor

zhou9584 commented Oct 8, 2023

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

No pipelines are associated with this pull request.

@zhou9584
Copy link
Contributor

zhou9584 commented Oct 8, 2023

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@zhou9584
Copy link
Contributor

zhou9584 commented Oct 8, 2023

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@DavidAsulin1
Copy link
Contributor Author

@DavidAsulin1 Again, thank you for the contribution, on behalf of the team.

Would you mind adding a UT that can cover the changed branches in the code?

@hydraxman The changes I made are better suited for Integration Testing rather than Unit Testing. I updated the private runXctest implementation to handle a different package behavior.

@zhou9584 zhou9584 merged commit 3fb42a6 into microsoft:main Nov 16, 2023
5 checks passed
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