Re: Roadmap Updated

Hi Kelly,
 
> The only case I can think of where you might want to call 
> user code is in generating "children" Tests. This would only 
> be for the case where you programmatically (ala 
> IterativeTest) generate the children.

Yes. That's the only one we have come up with. I've yet to
see any reason why this should not be done at the point of
running the tests.
 
> >  Let's say I run the gui and let it stay  open for an hour. 
> While it's 
> > sitting there, I modify the contents  of the directory in question.
> >
> >  Now I run the tests. Run time is now. Load time was an hour ago.
> >
> >  What implications does this have for your requirements?
> 
> I suppose you can guess my answer... :-)  I just want it to 
> work the way I expect of course :-P
> 
> In thinking about the implementation is interesting. If there 
> is a separate step for generating "child" lists of tests, I 
> suppose they could be rerun every time for certain classes of 
> Theories...

Is there any reason you can think of not to rerun the generation
every time? If so, how will we let NUnit know that the old data
should be used?
 

> >  I don't know what you mean by "Theory" but to my 
> definition,  it's a 
> > lot more than a combination of two technical approaches.
> >  It's a whole new concept and a way of thinking about things.
> 
> It is a new concept, but like BDD, it's a concept that I 
> think merely encapsulates the RowTest and IterativeTest 
> approaches, with the possible addition of randomly or 
> semi-randomly generated parameter sets. If there is more to 
> your understanding of Theory than that, I'd like to know what it is.

I disagree very strongly. It's not merely a combination of several
programming techniques. It's an entirely different way of thinking.
Certainly, data-driven techniques are a part of it. If I were the
guy who originated the concepts, I'd be offended, but I think he's
less touchy than I am. :-)

Because I take this new concept very seriously, it is an impediment
to communication for me to have to discuss "theory-like" implementations
as a shorthand for "interchangeable data sources" - which is what
I suspect you may be talking about.
 
> I agree... it's not about data-driven tests at all, even 
> though that's a side effect.

OK? But that seems to contradict your "merely" above.
 
> >  Aside from the definition, I haven't yet seen a proposed  API to 
> > which I might commit. Are you suggestiong one?
> 
> I am... would you like a formalized proposal? We've talked 
> about a couple of approaches in some email threads... but I'd 
> be happy to write a formal proposed syntax.

For theories or for data-driven tests? And you don't have to
be too formal - just spell it out. :-)

However, if you are talking about a full-fledged implementation
of the Theory concept, I think we're on the wrong list. NUnitV3
would be more suitable for futuristic stuff.

Charlie



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/