Re: nunit tests hold onto file handles aftertestsaredone

"David Jeske" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.windows.dotnet.nunit.user
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>  As I said, we may have the info you need available to do this in the next
> release. That said, I think a better approach would be to give the tests two
> different teardowns: one to cleanup after success, the other
> after failure.
>

This would be a reasonable solution. It would also be fine if teardown had a
(bool testPassed) paramater.

 However, even that approach has a problem. If a single test fails and you
> fail to clean up
> after it, it's likely that subsequent tests won't run correctly.
>

I don't have any problems with a new test not running correctly because
something wasn't cleaned up, because I run every test in a unique directory
name to assure it doesn't collide with any other test.  However, this means
the beginning of my test methods all have to include the testname again in
the directory create. I don't like having to double-datakeep. I'm thinking
I'll just switch to using a reflection stackwalk to get the current method
name.

http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/MethodName.aspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php

_______________________________________________
Nunit-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-users
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.