Re: Is.Serializable

Hi Simone,
 
Putting us back on the list so we can (hopefully) get more input
 
Here's what I think would be useful...
 
Some people may just want to check that the type is marked as serializable.
Fabio's
request, in fact, suggests that. Others will want to do a full check, using
a particular
formatter. One way to do that would be for them to pass in the formatter as
an argument.
 
So...
 
To check just for the attribute or the interface
  Is.Serializable() OR
  Is.Serializable
 
To check by trying to do it
  Is.Serializable(formatter) OR
  Is.Serializable.Using(formatter)
 
The aternatives above are between using a method and using a property. It
would be
cool to use the property for te first example and the method for the second,
but 
that's not possible.
 
Most of our syntactic elements use a property format when there is no
argument.
When an element has an optional argument, then we are forced to use method
syntax, which may look a bit odd. For example, we have to use Is.Ordered()
rather than Is.Ordered - That example should be familiar to you :-)
 
I lean toward "Using" or "With" or some other keyword.
 
What do folks think?
 
Charlie


  _____  

From: Simone Busoli [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:16 AM
To: Charlie Poole
Subject: Re: [Nunit-users] Is.Serializable


Hmm, I just realized that what I'm doing is not enough for the object to be
serializable. I noticed that the prerequisites for it to be serializable are
quite different according to whether you want to serialize it to xml or to
binary. For example, the binary serialization doesn't require classes to be
public, while xml does. xml serialization doesn't require the serializable
attribute, while the binary does. So I'm wondering if it could be the case
to split the assertion in IsBinarySerializable and IsXmlSerializable, or
check that it is both binary and xml serializable in the same assertion.
Thoughts?


On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Charlie Poole <[email protected]>
wrote:


Hi Simone,
 
This looks good to me. Would you like to synch up and fix it so it works
with the latest code? My major
changes to Constraint, ConstraintBuilder, etc. are done and it would give
you a good way for you
to get familiar with those changes. Once it's done, you can either send me a
new patch or - if
you would like - I'll make you a commiter so you can add it yourself. If you
agree, I'll explain more
to you about review of code etc.
 
Charlie


  _____  

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Simone
Busoli
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 7:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Nunit-users] Is.Serializable


With regards to: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail
<http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2028517&group_id=1
0749&atid=360749> &aid=2028517&group_id=10749&atid=360749

I have implemented a SerializableConstraint accessible via Is.Serializable.
The match is true if serialization to and deserialization from a memory
stream via a BinaryFormatter both succeed and the deserialized object is not
null. Otherwise the match returns false.

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