Re: NUnit 2.5: What's In It Now

Hi Kelly, 

> I just want an exception that I can throw that means the Test 
> exits without penalty.

Can't you just return?
 
> If the programmer is using a random number generator, or 
> anything just a little complex like reading data files that 
> someone else may be generating, then he loses total control 
> over the input. That's part of what you run into doing data testing.

Agreed. The question is whether one should be encouraging programmers
to do things like that. Jim and Brad have answered absolutely no.
I have said "when testing a theory." You are saying "whatever the
programmer wants." These are different philosophical views.

> >  > Would your implementation of Assume be different than that?
> >
> >  No - but what I do with the exception may differ.
> 
> That's why I asked for an extension point at that location in 
> the code... If I can do it another way, then that's fine too.

I don't understand what point you mean. Exceptions are not handled
at all by the core of nunit. They are handled by extensions.

> I wrote the code... it's not like the last time where I was 
> trying to get you to do it. All you have to do is accept my 
> contribution. :-)

Where is the code? I must have missed something.
 
> Where I have difficulty is that it "feels" like an emotional 
> response rather than a technical one.

There is a third category, that of goals and objectives. I think
you may be equating "non-technical" with "emotional" - as we
techies sometimes do.

That said, there comes to be an emotional level, arising
when one's argumets don't seem to be heard.

> That is probably a 
> limitation of the medium more than anything else, but I just 
> can't grok your technical argument because it seems to be 
> based on "I haven't thought about it enough yet" and not much 
> more. 

First off, I don't think I've even tried to make a technical
argument. I'm trying to operate at a somewhat higher
level in order to decide /whether/ to include a feature.
Technical arguments belong in the discussion of /how/ to
implement a feature - stuff like "Should we use an exception
or something else."

Secondly, as the guy who takes personal responsibility for
everythin that goes into a release, I feel that "I haven't
thought about it enough" is a darned good reason to delay
doing something.

Thirdly, you are putting a lot of energy into getting
what you want done this month rather than next month,
and that seems a bit emotional to me too.

> I'm done beating this dead horse. I'm sure we'll get it 
> right in 3.0, or perhaps close to right in an Addin.

There is no reason it can't be done right - or the way
you want - in an Addin. In fact, if it can't be, then 
it can't be done in 3.0, which will consist entirely of 
addins. What you want - to the extent I grasp it - seems
to be perfectly easy to implement in the existing Addin
structure.

If you want to re-cast this discussion to "how can I do it"
rather than "why doesn't NUnit do X?" I'd be glad to help.

> >  Your example works fine without Assume - just substitute  "if" for 
> > "Assume.That"
> 
> With that argument, then there is no need for Assume even 
> with a full blown 3.0 Theory implementation. Unless it's just 
> a semantic issue. My lack of emotion about BDD should be a 
> clue how I feel about that sort of argument :-)

It was your example. :-) What I'm saying here is that you
have not managed to make me understand /how/ what you want
is different from an if statement.

> >  > >  2) As I mentionned in the earlier note, it's not hard  for  > 
> > someone to  > > implement Theory as an extension using  the 
> existing  
> > > extension points.
> >  > > Gary has done that, in fact.
> >  >
> I did write it. I guess I integrated it too tightly into the 
> core though. Perhaps I should take it up with Gary and see if 
> he can incorporate my Assume into his Theory... if he hasn't 
> done something similar already.

As I said, I may have missed something here. I knew you had written 
some code, but I thought it was only on-the-job and not available for
us to see. If you let me know (again?) where it is, I'll take
a look and maybe that will clarify things.

Charlie



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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