Re: NUnit 2.5: What's In It Now

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kelly,
>
>  Knowing your mail habits, I'm sending this back to the list. :-)

Uh, good call.. :-)

>  > >  Both the Gui and the console now display more detailed
>  > summary info:
>  > > errors, failures, not runnable, ignored  and skipped tests. While
>  > > not-runnable (invalid) tests  are not counted as errors,
>  > they display
>  > > in red in the  gui anyway so that they will get your attention.
>  >
>  > If I were to implement an addin or something to do my
>  > approach to Theory, which of these would you recommend for
>  > the result of running a  Theory and having Assume bail out of
>  > the run? Do any of them make sense?
>
>  I see two possible choices, neither of which is currently
>  available:
>
>  1) Inconclusive, which has been requested as a feature.
>  It makes sense that "Inconclusive" could be OK in a
>  Theory situation - provided other data is supplied - but
>  not OK in a normal Test.

Ok. That's one possibility. Sounds good.

>  2) No result at all, with the Theory giving only one result
>  if it passes and reporting specific failures if it fails.
>  This is how I tend to think of it. It means that two
>  implementations, one of them filtering the data
>  externally and one internally will give the same results.

There's also the case where none of the data passed in gets past the
Assumes. That's supposed to be a failure, but I suppose that is
already covered by fail.

>  > >  Test methods may have arguments (if you provide them)  and return
>  > > values. There are two new attributes for  specifying test data:
>  > > TestCase and DataSource.
>  >
>  > Have you described DataSource anywhere besides this email? I
>  > can guess how it works from what you say below. I have
>  > noticed that the documentation page is lagging the current
>  > release, is there some way I could help out with that? Just
>  > let me know what you want documented, or I can point out what
>  > I think is missing.
>
>  It's in the docs, which will be part of the snapshot. Finishing
>  them up is actually what is keeping me from releasing right now.
>
>
>  > >  TestCase provides inline arguments and may also specify
>  > an expected
>  > > exception, expected return value, test name  and description.
>  >
>  > Way cool.
>  >
>  > >  DataSource may take a string or a Type. A string is  the name of a
>  > > static property returning an IEnumerable.
>  > >  A Type must contain such a property - the first one  found is used.
>  >
>  > Interesting approach to DataSource. Still doesn't give a
>  > compile time error. If the type had to implement the
>  > IEnumerable interface instead of just having an IEnumerable
>  > property, then could you have a compile time error reported?
>
>  I agree. Of course, we would have to actually instantiate
>  the object in that case. I'll see about adding this in
>  the next drop.

Well, since you can't use the DataSource for more than one thing
anyway, this seems like a cleaner approach.

>  > This sounds like a case for a little bit of documentation.
>  > Give me a simple sample, and I can probably run from there.
>
>  See http://nunit.org/?p=testCase&r=2.5 and
>  http://nunit.org/?p=dataSource&r=2.5
>
>  Note that these pages have been updated, but others not yet.

That helps a lot.

>  > >  A new extension point "ParameterProviders" is available
>  > for addins
>  > > that provide test case data to paramterized  methods.
>  >
>  > I would kill to have a new extension point that would allow
>  > me to put an intercept in that would allow me to do Assume...
>  > It would be really simple, I think.
>
>  There is one: since Tests handle their own exceptions, you
>  just need to create a test type that handles this. You might
>  call it "Theory" :-)

We'll have to discuss this further. :-)

Perhaps we can start a new thread for this?

>  > >  I'm looking at Gary's Theory extension to see if it  fits
>  > into this
>  > > timeframe.
>  >
>  > I know that Assume is off your list for 2.5. But would it be
>  > possible to implement a couple of minor extension points that
>  > would allow for it in an Addin? It doesn't seem like that
>  > would be too hard, or take away very much from what Theory
>  > might develop into in the future.
>
>  Answering this separately.

Ok. By the way, I have run into several instances recently where I
found Assume would have been useful and appropriate inside of regular
data driven tests.

-Kelly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., 
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone