Re: Test case terminology (Kelly Anderson)
"Kelly Anderson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.windows.dotnet.nunit.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Feb 13, 2008 10:34 AM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > > 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. > > As you know, I'm not sold on the Theory nomenclature for this > use. However, it's clear we will have to introduce new > terminology if we create something that works differently. I'm not for getting rid of the Test/TextFixture terminology. At most, we might consider making Theory a synonym for Test... I don't know what you call a collection of Theories... Theorumi? ;-) > It seems to me that doing so is what allows us to be > backward compatible, while changing how TestFixture/Test > works might be considered incompatible. Yup. -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/