CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#.netunit-testingxunit.net
jrista
jrista

Reputation: 33010

Execute unit tests serially (rather than in parallel)

I am attempting to unit test a WCF host management engine that I have written. The engine basically creates ServiceHost instances on the fly based on configuration. This allows us to dynamically reconfigure which services are available without having to bring all of them down and restart them whenever a new service is added or an old one is removed.

I have run into a difficulty in unit testing this host management engine, however, due to the way ServiceHost works. If a ServiceHost has already been created, opened, and not yet closed for a particular endpoint, another ServiceHost for the same endpoint can not be created, resulting in an exception. Because of the fact that modern unit testing platforms parallelize their test execution, I have no effective way to unit test this piece of code.

I have used xUnit.NET, hoping that because of its extensibility, I could find a way to force it to run the tests serially. However, I have not had any luck. I am hoping that someone here on SO has encountered a similar issue and knows how to get unit tests to run serially.

NOTE: ServiceHost is a WCF class, written by Microsoft. I don't have the ability to change its behavior. Hosting each service endpoint only once is also the proper behavior...however, it is not particularly conducive to unit testing.

Upvotes: 239

Views: 183192

Answers (12)

rahul kumar
rahul kumar

Reputation: 1

Here is the correct solution for executing unit tests serially.
Xunit provides a CollectionBehaviorAttribute class to handle the executing behavior of unit tests. This can help prevent race conditions, shared resource conflicts, and other issues that may arise when running tests concurrently.

using Xunit;
using Moq;    
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]
namespace UnitTests
{ 
    public class UnitTest
    {
    }
}

Upvotes: 0

Squiggle
Squiggle

Reputation: 2597

Preface: All good unit tests should be 100% isolated. Using shared state (e.g. depending on a static property that is modified by each test) is regarded as bad practice.

I encountered exactly the same issue because my system uses a static service locator (which is less than ideal).

By default xUnit 2.x runs all tests in parallel. This can be modified per-assembly by defining the CollectionBehavior in your AssemblyInfo.cs in your test project.

For per-assembly separation use:

using Xunit;
[assembly: CollectionBehavior(CollectionBehavior.CollectionPerAssembly)]

or for no parallelization at all use:

[assembly: CollectionBehavior(DisableTestParallelization = true)]

The latter is probably the one you want. More information about parallelisation and configuration can be found on the xUnit documentation.

Upvotes: 164

Mark Amery
Mark Amery

Reputation: 155176

For .NET Core projects, you can configure xUnit with an xunit.runner.json file, as documented at https://xunit.net/docs/configuration-files.

The setting you need to change to stop parallel test execution is parallelizeTestCollections, which defaults to true:

Set this to true if the assembly is willing to run tests inside this assembly in parallel against each other. ... Set this to false to disable all parallelization within this test assembly.

JSON schema type: boolean
Default value: true

So a minimal xunit.runner.json for this purpose looks like

{
    "parallelizeTestCollections": false
}

As noted in the docs, remember to include this file in your build, either by:

  • Setting Copy to Output Directory to Copy if newer in the file's Properties in Visual Studio, or

  • Adding

      <Content Include=".\xunit.runner.json">
    <CopyToOutputDirectory>PreserveNewest</CopyToOutputDirectory>
  </Content>

    to your .csproj file, or

  • Adding

      "buildOptions": {
    "copyToOutput": {
      "include": [ "xunit.runner.json" ]
    }
  }

    to your project.json file

depending upon your project type.

Finally, in addition to the above, if you're using Visual Studio then make sure that you haven't accidentally clicked the Run Tests In Parallel button, which will cause tests to run in parallel even if you've turned off parallelisation in xunit.runner.json. Microsoft's UI designers have cunningly made this button unlabelled, hard to notice, and about a centimetre away from the "Run All" button in Test Explorer, just to maximise the chance that you'll hit it by mistake and have no idea why your tests are suddenly failing:

Screenshot with the button circled

Upvotes: 40

Abhinav Saxena
Abhinav Saxena

Reputation: 3924

Each test class is a unique test collection and tests under it will run in sequence, so if you put all of your tests in same collection then it will run sequentially.

In xUnit you can make following changes to achieve this:

Following will run in parallel:

namespace IntegrationTests
{
    public class Class1
    {
        [Fact]
        public void Test1()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test1 called");
        }

        [Fact]
        public void Test2()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test2 called");
        }
    }

    public class Class2
    {
        [Fact]
        public void Test3()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test3 called");
        }

        [Fact]
        public void Test4()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test4 called");
        }
    }
}

To make it sequential you just need to put both the test classes under same collection:

namespace IntegrationTests
{
    [Collection("Sequential")]
    public class Class1
    {
        [Fact]
        public void Test1()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test1 called");
        }

        [Fact]
        public void Test2()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test2 called");
        }
    }

    [Collection("Sequential")]
    public class Class2
    {
        [Fact]
        public void Test3()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test3 called");
        }

        [Fact]
        public void Test4()
        {
            Console.WriteLine("Test4 called");
        }
    }
}

For more info you can refer to this link

Upvotes: 355

user3057544
user3057544

Reputation: 868

For me, in .Net Core Console application, when I wanted to run test methods ( not classes ) synchronously, the only solution which worked was this described in this blog: xUnit: Control the Test Execution Order

Upvotes: 2

Matt Hayes
Matt Hayes

Reputation: 231

None of the suggested answers so far worked for me. I have a dotnet core app with XUnit 2.4.1. I achieved the desired behavior with a workaround by putting a lock in each unit test instead. In my case, I didn't care about running order, just that tests were sequential.

public class TestClass
{
    [Fact]
    void Test1()
    {
        lock (this)
        {
            //Test Code
        }
    }

    [Fact]
    void Test2()
    {
        lock (this)
        {
            //Test Code
        }
    }
}

Upvotes: 3

G&#252;nd&#252;z Emre &#214;ZER
G&#252;nd&#252;z Emre &#214;ZER

Reputation: 351

This is old question but I wanted to write a solution to people searching newly like me :)

Note: I use this method in Dot Net Core WebUI integration tests with xunit version 2.4.1.

Create an empty class named NonParallelCollectionDefinitionClass and then give CollectionDefinition attribute to this class as below. (The important part is DisableParallelization = true setting.)

using Xunit;

namespace WebUI.IntegrationTests.Common
{
    [CollectionDefinition("Non-Parallel Collection", DisableParallelization = true)]
    public class NonParallelCollectionDefinitionClass
    {
    }
}

After then add Collection attribute to the class which you don't want it to run in parallel as below. (The important part is name of collection. It must be same with name used in CollectionDefinition)

namespace WebUI.IntegrationTests.Controllers.Users
{
    [Collection("Non-Parallel Collection")]
    public class ChangePassword : IClassFixture<CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup>>
    ...

When we do this, firstly other parallel tests run. After that the other tests which has Collection("Non-Parallel Collection") attribute run.

Upvotes: 34

Mat&#237;as Romero
Mat&#237;as Romero

Reputation: 1333

I've added the attribute [Collection("Sequential")] in a base class:

    namespace IntegrationTests
    {
      [Collection("Sequential")]
      public class SequentialTest : IDisposable
      ...


      public class TestClass1 : SequentialTest
      {
      ...
      }

      public class TestClass2 : SequentialTest
      {
      ...
      }
    }

Upvotes: 2

Dmitry Polomoshnov
Dmitry Polomoshnov

Reputation: 5364

For .NET Core projects, create xunit.runner.json with:

{
  "parallelizeAssembly": false,
  "parallelizeTestCollections": false
}

Also, your csproj should contain

<ItemGroup>
  <None Update="xunit.runner.json"> 
    <CopyToOutputDirectory>PreserveNewest</CopyToOutputDirectory>
  </None>
</ItemGroup>

For old .Net Core projects, your project.json should contain

"buildOptions": {
  "copyToOutput": {
    "include": [ "xunit.runner.json" ]
  }
}

Upvotes: 145

TrueWill
TrueWill

Reputation: 25563

I don't know the details, but it sounds like you might be trying to do integration testing rather than unit testing. If you could isolate the dependency on ServiceHost, that would likely make your testing easier (and faster). So (for instance) you might test the following independently:

  • Configuration reading class
  • ServiceHost factory (possibly as an integration test)
  • Engine class that takes an IServiceHostFactory and an IConfiguration

Tools that would help include isolation (mocking) frameworks and (optionally) IoC container frameworks. See:

Upvotes: 5

HB MAAM
HB MAAM

Reputation: 4012

you can Use Playlist

right click on the test method -> Add to playlist -> New playlist

then you can specify the execution order, the default is, as you add them to the play list but you can change the playlist file as you want

enter image description here

Upvotes: 6

Graviton
Graviton

Reputation: 83316

Maybe you can use Advanced Unit Testing. It allows you to define the sequence in which you run the test. So you may have to create a new cs file to host those tests.

Here's how you can bend the test methods to work in the sequence you want.

[Test]
[Sequence(16)]
[Requires("POConstructor")]
[Requires("WorkOrderConstructor")]
public void ClosePO()
{
  po.Close();

  // one charge slip should be added to both work orders

  Assertion.Assert(wo1.ChargeSlipCount==1,
    "First work order: ChargeSlipCount not 1.");
  Assertion.Assert(wo2.ChargeSlipCount==1,
    "Second work order: ChargeSlipCount not 1.");
  ...
}

Do let me know whether it works.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions