Sometimes I have tests which are unstable on the buildserver, since the specs of the buildserver are slower. Even when I crunch the tests locally, they still never fail. (Usually frontend tests, making use of bUnit rendering)
I would find it handy to be able to crunch tests with a forced bottleneck, limiting resources, allowing me to reproduce the buildserver circumstances.1 vote
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
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
- Don't see your idea?