Re: Test case terminology (Kelly Anderson)
"Kelly Anderson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.dotnet.nunit.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Feb 12, 2008 12:53 PM, Gary Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > I agree this is a hard question. I'm not sure about theory, as Charlie > pointed out in earlier postings, the name Theory does have a specific > meaning in xUnit circles (as is implemented by xUnit.net, (and by jUNit?)), > and even though we don't have the name in NUnit, I don't know whether we've > got the same concept either. > > I'd say "test case" too for each method, we traditionally execute one test > case per test method, but parameterized test methods allow you to express > many test cases with a single test method (as hinted at in this posting I > found > http://www.julmar.com/blog/mark/PermaLink,guid,e47f09cc-e893-46a6-aa13-7202d4e50986.aspx), I didn't get the point of the link... > but as to what you should call that set of test cases? I'm leaning more > towards theory again - xUnit.net said that a Fact is expressed by a specific > instance of data, and a theory is expressed by a range of data? I've yet to > read the pointed to literature in any detail.. The Theory nomenclature is internally consistent, and in this context superior. The downside is that it's not backwards compatible into the NUnit 2.x name space. -Kelly ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/