Re: Roadmap Updated

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Charlie Poole
<[email protected]> wrote:
>  Sure, just like you need to create TestSuites and TestMethods
>  using the info on the types and methods. RowTest is created
>  exactly the same way - the data itself is contained in the
>  metadata of the assembly.

Right. Same page achieved again.

>  > >  [Test(32,0)][
>  > >  [Test(212,0)]
>  > >  [Test(-40,-40)]
>  > >  public void CanConvertFarenheitToCelsius(int f, inf c)  {
>  > >   Assert.That( FarenheitToCelsius(f), Is.EqualTo( c ) );  }
>  >
>  > Stupid question, does this work today? Or is this something proposed?
>
>  It's not "proposed" just something I made up. But it's a very simple
>  way to express the equivalent of RowTest and I might implement it.

Could work.

>  > >  Nothing theory-like about that. It's just an easier  way to write
>  > > three tests.
>  >
>  > Ok, I think I get where you're going.
>  >
>  > >  [Test]
>  > >  public void FarenheitToCelciusToFarenheitGivesOriginalValue(
>  > >         [Values(-40,0,32,212,500)]val)  {
>  > >   Assert.That(
>  > >         CelciusToFarenheit( FarenheitToCelcius( val ) ),
>  > >         Is.EqualTo( val ) );
>  > >  }
>  > >
>  > >  That's a theory. And I didn't even use the word. :-)
>  >
>  > Ok, like I've said before, Theory isn't ALWAYS new, just a
>  > new way to talk about things. It's like BDD a bit in that sense.
>
>  No, my point is that it is new. Unlike BDD. :-)

You can implement Theories now, without [Theory], it's just harder. It
is focusing, and in that sense, I think it will help people write
better tests that function as better documentation. It's a good thing,
it's more substantial than BDD IMHO.

>  > Did I say that? If I did, then I didn't mean it. :-)
>
>  I was sure you didn't.

:-)

>  > Ok, I am on the same page on this point now. Sorry for being
>  > so dense. :-)
>
>  It's just a question of finding the words.

No, I was actually dense until today on this precise point of WHEN the
tests had to come into being. It's obvious now that I "get" it, but it
wasn't before.

>  > I don't think IterativeTest is even sufficient to do all of
>  > the interesting things you might want to do. It's just one
>  > way of coming up with data to test out your Theory.
>
>  Okay. I'll look forward to the next post.

It's on Nunit3...

-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/