Re: Need Feedback: RequiredAddinAttribute

I understand now. Given your description, I think it makes the most sense to
make [RequiredAddin] assembly only. Further, it seems sensible to require
this attribute in order to use the addin features within the assembly, to
assure that the proper addin is loaded to parse the [MyTest] attributes in
the file.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hi David,
>
> This got a bit of discussion a while back, when we were thinking of doing
> it.
>
> The concensus seemed to be this: If I wrote a test suite that requires an
> addin,
> then I want a failure if the addin is not present. So the absence of a
> required addin
> gives a Not Runnable status, which pretty much looks like an error (it's
> red).
>
> In other words, we don't (in the alpha anyway) treat a missing addin like a
> normal difference in configuration - mostly because we assume that the
> addin
> can be installed easily.
>
> Since TestBuilders and SuiteBuilders were easiest to build in the
> beginning,
> that's what most people did. Hopefully, there will be less of them in
> future.
>
> It seems "intuitive" that you could write "[MyTest,
> RequiredAddin("MyTestAddin")]
> and have NUnit give you some kind of report, but it's not that obvious how
> NUnit
> could distinguish it from [MySetUp, RequiredAddin("MySetUpAddin")] assuming
> each is on a method with the same signature.
>
> Charlie
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* David Jeske [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:37 PM
> *To:* Charlie Poole
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [Nunit-users] Need Feedback: RequiredAddinAttribute
>
>  On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The 2.5 Alpha 3 release of NUnit includes the RequiredAddinAttribute,
>> used to indicate that a test expects a particular addin to be installed.
>> This is intended to give a failure if the addin is not present.
>>
>> As explained at http://nunit.org/?p=requiredAddin&r=2.5 the attribute
>> will not always be seen by NUnit when it is placed on a method or
>> a class. I'm thinking of disallowing it on methods and classes in
>> the next release for that reason. What do you think?
>
>
> I don't use Addins, so I'm not the best qualified to answer this, but I
> imagine if I did use Addins, I would want to put [RequiredAddin] mostly on
> methods, so that my test framework could remain in-tact with their current
> assembly organization, and those tests would simply not run if the Addin was
> not available. (showing yellow in the nunit-gui)
>
> Do most Addins make their own [MyTest] attributes to mark tests?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
> challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
> prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> _______________________________________________
> Nunit-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-users
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/

_______________________________________________
Nunit-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nunit-users