Feature Requests

  1. Allow coverage marker colour to be defined for tests in progress

    When tests execute the colour of the coverage markers darken. This is very useful for determining when affected tests have completed. However, the contrast is too subtle. It would be good if this could be changed in the 'Coverage Markers' configuration section. Either with an absolute colour or at least to have control over the percentage of darkening.

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. Remote server: Run test on all (connected) servers

    I have a test which is required to be run manually to reset the environment to a initial state.
    I would like the option to run the test on all servers at once. Now I have to select "run test on server X" for each server I have which is tedious.

    (This feature would also be good to ensure a particular test is passing on all servers).

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. Support UITestMethod in Windows Store apps

    Posted in response to: forum.ncrunch.net/yafpostsm5807UITestMethod-not-recognized.aspx.

    Currently NCrunch ignores test methods with UITestMethod attribute which forces the test to run on the UI thread. This is required whenever the test needs to manipulate a UI element even if it's not a UI test in itself.

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. Remote server: Add some sort of performance index per server

    I would like to have some index indicating how well the grid node server performs related to other servers.
    For instance, if I run 2 grid servers on Azure and 2 on internal network, I want to know if it's worth adding more servers on Azure or on internal network (or if it helps out scaling Azure servers etc.).

    One idea might be to have an average processing time on tests, and check when test has been executed on different servers is above or below the average execution time and calculate some sort of performance index from those measurements and…

    4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. Add Setting to Allow NCrunch to Output to Standard Console

    Add a way to force console output to appear in the regular 'Output' window rather than having to click the test itself and see the output.

    This would be extremely useful so i view my Console.WriteLine output in real time in the Output window rather than having to wait until the test finishes and have to click on it to see the output. Also when my tests fail by throwing exceptions when using FluentAssertions, the code hangs on that line and anything i wrote to the console is lost when i stop debugging the test.

    Basically we just need to…

    3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. Test Window Filter

    I would like a filter in the test window that "show only tests that should runs automatically due to configured Engine Mode"

    11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. Remote server: Conditionally run tests depending on which remote server they are running on.

    Scenario:
    I have http integration tests which will report results in one way locally (due to IIS custom errors) and one way remotely. Thus for tests verifying the corretc "remote" response I would like them to run on a grid node that is not running on my local machine.

    The current "Capabilities" is not attractive since that is set on grid node server itself and requires project-specific user configurations on each grid node server (which annoys the developers if they are running them on their dev machines if I will need to interrupt to tweak custom project settings).

    Possible solutions…

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  8. Integrate updates for NCrunch into VS2013 Notifications

    The update reminders at the moment come through the N icon on the bottom right. Visual Studio however already provides a separate Notifications hub.

    24 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. Make NCrunch grid performance measurable

    Provide some kind of programmatic access to performance indicators that are able to report the performance of a ncrunch grid, e.g. provide access to the duration of a full-end-to-end test. This would enable things like auto-scaling a grid.

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  10. Allow multiple simultaneous instances with different filters

    It would be great if I could get multiple risk/progress bars pointed at different categories of tests. I would like to see (for instance) one risk/progress bar for acceptance, one for integration, and one for unit tests. It would be great if these were full parallel instances - like with their own configuration and everything. For instance, having acceptance tests farmed out to servers makes a lot of sense but all my unit tests should run locally because it takes longer to farm out a batch than to run it.

    0 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. In Test window, Server column for grouping rows should include all servers for children (not just one of them).

    In my case Server always says "(Local)" if any child test ran locally. I think this should be a comma-delimited list like Category. Next best thing would be leaving it blank.

    If I'm filtering for failed tests only, the current behavior is really a bug, because all of the failing tests may have ran on one node server that isn't (local), yet the grouping row alone still says (local). So it makes scanning the server column to troubleshoot issues (in this case node server dependency config issues) confusing.

    0 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
1 2 10 11 12 14 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

Feature Requests

Categories

Feedback and Knowledge Base