Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: M20100211-1343 JUnit XML reports generated by ETF have 2 issues : * the file name should start with TEST-xxx.xml , and not package.class.xml * they begin with the xml node <testsuites> , instead of <testsuite> Actually, maybe there is a way to configure this, but I did not find it, so maybe this is not a "real" bug I encountered these problems when trying to integrate my reports into Sonar (http://www.sonarsource.com) , Sonar expects the report file name to begin with TEST-xxx.xml, and also it expects to find many XML reports, containing ONE <testsuite> node, and not just ONE xml report file beginning with the node <testsuites> and containing MANY <testsuite> nodes The work around is to rename the report with ant, and remove the the testsuites nodes, also with ant. I just thought that being able to set up these would be great ( and I did not find a way to do so...) Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.launch PDE build 2.launch ETF against your testtarget platform : <target name="run-tests"> <ant target="core-test" antfile="${library-file}" dir="${eclipse-home}"> <property name="data-dir" location="${testDirectory}/eclipse/data" /> <property name="plugin-name" value="${plugin-name}" /> <property name="classname" value="${classname}" /> <property name="xml-test-output" location="${etf.report.xml.dir}"/> <property name="junit-report-output" location="${etf.out.dir}" /> <property name="os" value="${platform.os}" /> <property name="ws" value="${platform.ws}" /> <property name="arch" value="${platform.arch}"/> <property name="extraVMargs" value="${extraVMargs}"/> </ant> </target> 3.go check the XML Junit reports
Is this still valid? Needed? We generate the names based on the way we run and summarize the reports, so if its a matter of "interfacing with other systems", I suggest that others write that "conversion function" (which you've apparently done). If something more is wanted, please re-open and I will mark it "help wanted" to see if someone wants to provide a patch which a) does what we currently do and b) does what ever other systems expect. Thanks BTW, I just ran across this looking for something else, so thought I'd mark it in an "honest" way. I'm not saying it's not a valid request. But, given no comments for 3 years I'm not sure its worth leaving open. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
