Error: Invalid setting 'RunConfiguration'. Invalid value 'arm64' specified for 'TargetPlatform'.

[vcsjones]

I'm trying to run tests on an ARM64 environment and run in to the following output when executing dotnet test:

Settings file provided does not conform to required format. An error occurred while loading the settings. Error: Invalid setting 'RunConfiguration'. Invalid value 'arm64' specified for 'TargetPlatform'.

My usual testing strategy works on x86-64, so I'm not sure if I should be running tests differently on ARM64 or if what I was doing worked by accident.

My steps are:

1. Build ./build.sh -rc Release -s clr+libs
2. Ensure the local .dotnet/dotnet is on the PATH.
3. cd src/libraries/System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates/tests
4. dotnet build
5. dotnet test

Step 5 is where I get the error.

This is on ARM64 Ubuntu 18.04.5 environment.

[Dotnet-GitSync-Bot]

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

[vcsjones]

I was able to unblock myself by removing this line from .runsettings:

runtime/eng/testing/.runsettings

Line 13 in ac3595e

<TargetPlatform>$$TARGETPLATFORM$$</TargetPlatform>

[vcsjones]

/cc @ViktorHofer (Sorry if this I am tagging you incorrectly here)

[ViktorHofer]

@nohwnd is arm64 now supported in vstest? More precisely, is setting that configuration in the runsettings file now supported?

[nohwnd]

Will have to try that option itself, but it definitely runs on arm64 with the latest version.

Tagging subscribers to this area: @ViktorHofer
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

[nohwnd]

Added an issue on our repo. We probably need to get some arm64 hardware to fix this properly. The platform is checked in multiple places. Are you facing some other issues when you don't force the platform? Or is that an acceptable workaround?

[ViktorHofer]

@jakub do we need to specify the platform in the runsettings file at all?

[nohwnd]

@ViktorHofer The only reason to specify it would be forcing x86 on AnyCPU assemblies on a 64-bit system. Can't think of anything else.

Tagged the wrong Jakub I guess :)