Or in another way, is there any reason to install NUnit or any other library and use it instead of the one that comes with Visual Studio 2008?
We have been using MS test tools since VS2005, and I did look at NUnit as a replacement at one point because of some problems we had with the MS tools. Here are some of my findings:
MS test tools pros
Easy to convince management to use MS supplied tools (of course this is not a technical issue, but it is probably relevant in a lot of companies)
Test libraries, test runner and code coverage are all nicely integrated with VS
Central reporting and other features in a Team Foundation setup
More or less the same feature set as with NUnit (I get the feeling that NUnit may be a tad better than MS test tools, but the differences are not huge)
MS test tools cons
VS2005 - really slow, VS2008 a lot better, but still sluggish for large solutions
Test host is STA which makes it harder to test multi-threaded code
VS support is a bit clunky because they support test-first and test-after in the same interface (so there are two "new unit test" commands -> more support work)
In the end switching to NUnit was not attractive to us for a couple of reasons:
Code changes, not a lot but with a large number of tests it still amounts to a bit of work
Increased cost and complexity per developer seat: if you swap MS Test with NUnit, you also loose the test runner and code coverage. Both can be obtained through other tools such as R#, TestDriven.NET, NCover etc, but it all adds to both the cost and the complexity.
Do you want developers who don't have Visual Studio 2008, or who only have the Express edition, to run the unit tests? This is particularly relevant for Open Source projects. If so, I'd go with one of the open source unit test frameworks.
I think most test projects created before VS2008 will nowadays still use other libraries.
For newer projects it comes down to personal taste I guess, or company policies.
Also, not all visual studio versions support the testing framework I think...
I have just started to use Visual Studio test projects. I have no experience of using thrid party test products, but I have found that the Visual Studio one appears to be perfectly adequate for most points.
I think that it would boild down to what you have experience in.
If you already know how to use NUnit and/or Rhino mocks then go with them.
If you have no experience of either or aren't too bothered about gaining experience in them then go with the Visual Studio supplied one.
A useful pointer is that the Visual Studio one will create test method stubs and accessors automatically for you if you right click and select "Create Unit Test" from anywhere in your code. Particularly useful if you're not following a strict TDD of writing tests before coding.
Some advantages:
(Jon's) You can run your tests in VS 2008 Express
Lot's of cutting edge features get built on top of the free libraries. Eg. BDD
In general there is rich extensability when it comes to the OSS testing frameworks.
You can debug into the source of the OSS frameworks, and make changes if required.
Arguably, some test frameworks like xUnit are easier to learn and enforce a cleaner side-effect free testing pattern.
Given the awesome testdriven.net supports pretty much all of the OSS testing frameworks, you get the same (if not better) IDE integration that you get with VS 2008.
A couple of notes RE MSTest...
1) There is an entire team dedicated to brining features to market (it's literally their full time job). These guys end up having resources for writing documents, integration points into other Microsoft products, discussing advances from the general test community and how these get into Microsoft test products and in general an overall, fully functioning product unit dedicated to the effort. When you go with MSTest, you get the full benefit of these peoples efforts and the dollars Ms invests.
2) Web Testing and Stress Testing. There is yet a WHOLE other dedicated group (separate from the MSTest group) that works on Web testing and stress testing. These are huge additions to the Test stack from Microsoft. These offer ways to simulate online users, use complex bandwidth manipulation, check server performance and much much much more. The Web and Stress testing stuff is a BIG reason to really give the MS Test stack a hard look.
3) Functional testing ... Ms is adding full UI automated testing support and this will really round out their offering. It was missing in terms of earlier versions of MS Test tools, but it must be considered that a fully integrated set of UI testing tools will really amp up the overall stock of an investment in MS test technology.
4) As noted above - Impact Testing. From a developers point of view - this is WAY cool. As mentioned - the tools select the right unit tests passed on code coverage of the unit test. So a dev edits and existing class, etc... and the tool specifically points to the tests that impact the checkin. BTW - this is a GREAT example of the research you gain from that I mentioned in #1.
.... BTW - Full disclosure - I worked on VSTS directly - and totally consider it a part of my family - so yes - I am utterly compromised in terms of favoritism.
As for Non-MS test tools ...
A) You can't disregard the efforts of other companies nor the entire open source community. Really MS still loses if you consider on one hand the entire open source community and all of other company efforts VS several Microsoft product teams. HOWEVER, the MS efforts are mostly coordinated (though not always) and do tend to have at least soft points of integration (though again, not always).
B) Faster turn-around from other vendors / the open source community. Ms is improving - BUT - no - other communities and vendors DO out pace MS in getting things to market. This is not different from test tool innovations.
C) ***** Other testing tools will do a GREAT job with non-ms technology stack stuff. Ms tools will be 'ok' in some cases - and in other cases utterly miss the boat. Many times the big ticket wins from MS tools aren't there for other technology (read NON-MS) technology stacks - ... Other vendors and the open source community (obviously) do provide much more compelling support.
In the end... I'd suggest this: If you're on the MS stack AND have an investment in Visual Studio - particuarly with MSDN - and thus have a major amount of access and investment in buying MS tools .... REALLY, using SOME FORM of MS development and test tools is a no brainer. I didn't even discuss the test tools integration and usage of the rest of VSTS - holy cow.
However - if you're using other stacks, don't have the end-to-end investment in the MS stack / MS provided developer tools ... If you're operating in a shop where other OS's and such are huge deals for desktop or server installs, etc... Then perhaps minor elements of the MS tool set might be worth checking out - but obviously starting in the MS test tools direction will be somewhat more difficult / costly.
Hope this helps.
NUnit allows you to run tests in a defined order whereas the Visual Studio test framework runs the tests concurrently.
Related
I can find some articles on how to use them but I can't seem to find anywhere peoples impression of them using them in real projects. I have been trying to figure out how to use them and I've had alot of problems.
Can someone out there who uses these tools on the job give me thier impression? Are there better alternate tools available? Using these really just a waste of time?
With Coded UI Tests I see how they are good for basic javascript checking but its so basic of a example I don't think it is worth it. With web tests I like how they work but when I activate code coverage/ASP.NET profiling it doesnt work half the time.
I tried both Selenium and Coded UI for integration testing the project I am working on. I wrote a blog article with my impressions.
The bottom line for me is that both Selenium and Coded UI are still far from perfect, but better than manual testing. I am using Selenium right now, though I might revisit CodedUI if a few things would be fixed in a later version.
experience with Selenium and VS Coded UI test for web apps.
Better than manual testing in my eyes, though the tests are at times hard to maintain and often need to be changed manually to make them more robust. Both tools have browser plugins which can generate tests automatically, but this code is generally not very resilient towards changes in the HTML (in case of web apps).
You will be disappointed if you expect an automated test run orders of magnitude faster than a manual tester. I think the aim of the vendors is to get the automated test execute aboit twice as fast as a manual tester (that can feel painfully slow if you have a large set of tests).
I have used both selenium 1.0 (currently deprecated 2.0 for my dev environment) and visual studio 2010 web testing. There is no doubt, vs 2010 web testing tool is by far (and i mean by far) better than selenium 1.0 and 2.0 (in beta now) in terms of tooling, robustness and the different kinds of metric you can measure (load balance analysis etc). The one good thing also is that it can run your tests in firefox and other browsers as well(provided you have those browsers installed - i believe. Not sure on that one). Selenium is good and have been around for a while. Has a lot of community support but... it can be frustrating. They are currently in transition to 2.0 so I think things will get better and improve after 2.0. In short, if your development environment is .NET with vs 2010, you will get the best ROI by using of the web testing tools.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft and I am in no way affiliated with MS. My comment above is based on my experience and my only.
As with (most) all Microsoft tools they will do the job--provided you read plenty of materials to understand how to use them and you understand their limitations. If you are looking for full-featured, high-quality, relatively intuitive tools then look to RedGate.
Microsoft tools will do everything, but nothing terribly well.
I am currently using VS2010 Premium, and have heard that the debugging in Ultimate is so much better. Is it really worth upgrading to Ultimate to take advantage of the new debugging features they've included? Or is it marketing hype and not really usable for every day development scenarios?
I believe the feature is called IntelliTrace.
Do you work in a team? Do you get bugs reported to you by a tester, and then you can't repro them? Would it save you a lot of time to be able to "debug" through the actual setup the tester had - see their values and execution path? Or perhaps you work with another developer. Would you like to be able to set a bunch of breakpoints and leave "notes" in the code (pinned data tips) and then export them and give them to the other developer, saying "the bug we're looking for is in your part of the code".
If those scenarios cause you pain now, you want Ultimate. If you work alone, it's possible that IntelliTrace alone will make you want Ultimate. It is cool to "time travel" in the debugger.
If you are heavily working on Linq to SQL / Linq to entities then IntelliTrace feature will surely helpful.
Then you should upgrade.
they have quite a few named advantages in this site http://c.ittoolbox.com/groups/technical-functional/csharp-l/whats-new-in-vs2010-and-is-it-worth-upgrading-3531098#M3669289
IntelliTrace is the only way to download the crash and other event logs from Windows Azure. The devFabric isnt quite a 100% representation of the azure deployment environment. I have used the Intellitrace to find deployment flubs quickly. When everything takes 20 minutes to deploy, having a tool that saves you 1 or 2 deployment cycles pays for itself quickly.
If taken from a developers perspective, what would my team and I gain from using Visual Studio Team System and Visual Studio Team Foundation Server?
I can see some features and the like, but what have you gained from using the two versus using VS Professional and SVN (for a weak example). If there are any good links that you know of, please feel free to post them.
Team suite will allow you to manage the entire lifecycle management in a unified framework.
It is very easy to bind your changes and source code to a build, work-items, create release notes, etc.
Well, lets talk 2010... ;)
You can not compare Prof + SVN with TFS and TS - reason is you msis out a LOT. The comparisong would have to include some other technologies toget on feature parity.
IMHO good points are:
Good source control (including stable server based storage, proxies for external subteams etc.). Not saying SVN sucks, but I dont like not having locking checkouts on times, and if you run a larger / distributed team, the proxy functionaltiy really pushes performance.
Automatded build / Continous integration (which is where CC.NET or TeamCity would come in). Unless you dont do that, plus unit testing etc. - you simply did not mention any solution for this, and in TS it is integrated, which I take as a big plus.
Gated checkin (check in only after build server ok's the changes - harder to break builds)
Bug tracking / work item tracking (not the best, but again - you need another product for that). I personally think it does a mediocre job there (Axosoft OnTime looks a lot better), but - well... it is integrated ;)
Data Dude - database change script generation and handling of database versioning. Again, this is a big problematic area otherwise - third "another piece of software needed" thing.
That is a decent start at least to show you that the comparison is a lot more complicated.
I have an MSDN subscription and I'm wondering what edition of Visual Studio 2008 to get. I recall reading that Team System has a lot of bonus features like doing high-level system architecture stuff, and specialized things related for doing database work. As a solo dev, I wear many hats including database developer and architect - should I use Visual Studio Team Suite to get all of these things, or are they major overkill for a single guy?
EDIT: I have a "special" MSDN license (via the MS BizSpark program for startups) that gives me access to the FULL version of Team Suite for 3 years, for myself and any developers in my startup. After that I have to pay if I want upgrades but I'm free to use it for development indefinitely if I'm okay with not upgrading (per BizSpark licensing).
With that in mind, should I look at Team Suite or stick with Pro? I don't plan to use Team Foundation Server at all.
Well, the "test" stuff is now available in "pro" (but not profiling) so that removes one major comparator. In many ways, the MSDN subscription is a bigger factor than the VS product suite, assuming you don't need the full bredth of tools.
The VS feature list here; the MSDN feature list is here.
I used to use pro, and I never felt I missed much. Of course, you could always get pro plus something like dotTrace for profiling, ReSharper for code analysis/refactoring, and maybe TestDriven.NET for testing - you'd probably still have change left over.
I now have a team suite license (which is very nice), but if I had to pay for it I'd have to think very carefully; I'd probably get developer edition + MSDN.
I'd say that VS Team System is an overkill for single developer sweatshop, but your situation may proves otherwise. Team System is great when you're working on a project where all things are Microsoft, but all the extra features (database, architect, etc) will become useless when you start working with Oracle and MySQL database. Don't put too much stress on the tools, VS Pro is good enough if you want to save money. I'd rather spend more money on extra tools such as third party component and refactoring tools than the shining VS Team System.
But, since you join the BizzSpark program, which I think is really great for startups, I think you should go and try VSTS. You basically pay nothing for the extra features. By the time you need to pay full for the licenses, I think you will gather enough experience on VSTS to decide either to stick with it, or rollback to pro.
It never hurts to have as many toys as possible in your toy box. Sure, you may only play with some of them once in a blue moon but the point is that you have them there to play with when you want to.
I run on a Mac so I have to run all of my stuff off of a VM, and I got to thinking that all I needed was VS installed and then I could use the underlying OS to handle all of my other functions (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Office, Web Browsing) or in other words my general day to day computing life. Thanks to VMWare the transition between the VM and the host OS is easy, but you get attachments in your email that you want in you VM, or you work on a programming doc on the host os... the list goes on and on and on.
My point is this... you'll never regret putting more into your development system, you will regret not having that one tool that you wanted to have but just didn't think you'd need.
First, you should definitely use a version control product. Being able to go back in time and recall previous builds will save you tons of time and effort. Nothing worse than having it work one day, then realizing a change you made but can't remember broke everything.
Second, if it's just you (or even a couple of other people) you should probably go with subversion. Easy to setup, manage, and interact with is the name of the game here. Not to mention free, fully supported, reliable, and easy to learn.
I have recently started using VisualSVN Server and VisualSVN Client for Visual Studio. The server is free and the client is $45 for a license you can use on every one of your development machines. Add TortuousSVN and you can use the version control from the Windows shell.
I tried the TFS and VSS products from Microsoft and found subversive much easier to deal with.
If you are serious about unit testing your code (you should be) then I'd definitely recommend using the Development Edition, as it provides code coverage, which Professional Edition doesn't.
Sure, you can get most of the functionality difference between Professional & Development Edition from free/cheap 3rd party tools, but IMO these come at a price that is usually higher than what their tag says. Since you may use the even better Team Suite for 3 years I wouldn't even bother looking at the 3rd party tools.
I believe that the Team Developer Edition will now include the Database edition. This is probably all that you would require. From memory, the full Team Suite edition (Developer, Database, Architect and Test all together) is quite an expensive purchase.
One feature from team system which I like is the ability to profile the performance of your application. That might not merit an upgrade in itself if you have to pay for it, but it's very handy in some cases.
I agree with theBadDawg.
I thought it was a travesty when the unit testing features were only available in most expensive editions of Visual studio; unit testing is something everyone should have access to because it benefits us all by instilling good habits in us and helps us write far better software. Especially if we're new to the game.
Fortunately, it's now in the Pro edition.
If you can get the Team Suite and enjoy it's tools to be more productive and produce better quality software from it, do it.
I would agree with #Marc Gravell. You can probably approximate the value of Team System with add-ons, but you also need to factor in the cost of maintaining the add-ons as well. There is some pain associated with maintaining several third-party tools to get the functionality that you could get in an integrated package. Depending on who is spending the money (you or employer), the amount of pain you are willing to deal with to get all the functionality may differ.
I've been very happy with Team System, although I have added in TestDriven.Net as a test runner. We switched to this when TS came out with baked in unit testing, coverage analysis, and source code control. I'm very happy with the choice, but if I had had to pay for it personally, I probably would have gone with nUnit, nCover, SVN, etc. and kept the leftover money. I do feel that it has made me more productive, but I just wouldn't have had that much money to spend.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Is Microsoft Project the best tool for managing software development or IT projects or is there an alternative that is better?
Project is not good for managing development at all. I find it marginally useful for scheduling / work breakdown.
If you're on a Microsoft stack, Team Foundation Server is a good project management solution. It integrates with Project for scheduling and also provides the essentials of source control, work item (task / defect) tracking, and document management (via sharepoint.) The 2008 version has matured nicely, and the 2010 version looks very promising, especially in the area of requirements specification and traceability.
You can replicate the TFS features with a stack of open source and/or less expensive off-the-shelf software, but it is more work to integrate. It's debatable which is more flexible and easier to maintain once set up.
The following are required, regardless of platform:
Bug tracking
Work item / story / progress tracking of some kind (may be managed by above)
Collective team discussion (may be managed by above - discussion on work items, like FogBugz for example)
Source control (anything but SourceSafe)
Continuous build integration that runs unit tests
Instant messaging (OpenFire works great if your network blocks external services)
Document library
Farm of virtualized test machines (especially useful for install/upgrade testing)
I tend to use MSProject for capacity planning - a nice big broad brush of who could do what over a period, at a level of abstraction that makes it easy to rejig plans. For day to day tracking of the real work, I use Fogbugz. I think of it as MSProject/Gantty stuff for the strategic planning, and Fogbugz for the tactical management and planning.
Depends on the process you're using - if it's a waterfall like process, or there's a lot of non-software parts of the project (infrasstructure, manufacturing, marketing etc) then Project's OK for the overall task management - it's certainly competitive with other similar tools.
I don't think any of the "project management" tools (tasks, WBS, gannt charts etc) are much good at the management of the detailed tasks that happen when you're into the main software development phase - I usually end up in Excel for the projects I'm involved in.
And of course, there is much more to the successful management of a non-trivial software project than the bit that can be managed with a tool like Project. It doesn't help much with managing the requirements, issues, defects, meetings, test development etc - but then it's not supposed to.
Because of these limitations, I find I usually get most value out of Project in the planning phase - working out the task breakdown, what needs to be done, and roughly what needs to happen in what order.
As Eisenhower put it: "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." MS Project is a useful tool for planning.
If also need a free and open alternative to Project, you have OpenProj: http://openproj.org/openproj
We use Target Process here. It has a few "-isms", but overall is a good agile project management tool
We've been successfully using MS Project for planning but were missing the ability to share MS Project plans with customers and colleagues who don't have it installed. This led us to the idea of online Microsoft Project viewer - a service that would allow to view and share MS Project files (.mpp) online, apart from MS Project:
Hope this helps.
We use Acunote at my work place, but we follow a Agile/Scrum methodology.
What constitutes the "best tool" depends on many things. How you run your projects, who will be using them, etc.
There are many better alternatives, at least for software development. One such is embedded in Microsoft Visual Studio Team System. You may also want to check out tools from Rally Software and Version One. The latter are well suited to agile methods, while the former supports both agile and traditional CMM methods.
Well, given the fact that not even the Project team uses Project for Project (Source: Joel Spolsky), I would not want to use it for development.
I track my development tasks in our Bug Tracker, and the Project File just has something like "Planning 1 Week, Development 5 Weeks, QA 3 Weeks, Deployment 1 Week", aka. a VERY broad overview.
As for the BugTracker, FogBugz has this nice Estimate-Tracking that I find quite useful for making schedules, which is for me just another reason to not use Project.
But then again, I am not a Project Manager, so to me, Project is just an unnecessary complex, not really multi-user friendly and somewhat dated-feeling Tool to be used when building Houses, Highways or Space Stations, but not for Software.
We use Primavera on my project. Its supposed to be great although its the only tool I haven't really used for project management so far so I can't really compare it to anything else. Its not that easy to pick up but it can do everything I need (and apparently much more).
My favourite feature is the built in timesheets functionality which means my developers can book their hours to their tasks at the end of the week meaning that I don't need to constantly bug them about how they are progressing against their plans.
personally i dont believe ms project is good for software dev (i have used it, im not bashing it to be a purist)
its great if you are building a house or something which doesnt have such uncontrollable variables (e.g. how many bugs will you have? how long will bugs take to fix? how much feature-creep will there be?)
i like to keep my schedules very simple so more people can understand them, hence why i just use a google spreadsheet
the structure i use is described further here: Project Schedules with Google Spreadsheets
hope this helps
--LM