Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

[Steve M. <Ste...@ty...>]

I wasn't really thinking along those lines.  We've been using NMock2
with MbUnit.  The big issue for them is the NUnit framework being used
in NMock2.AcceptanceTests and NMock2.Tests projects.  They need to prove
that the tools do what they say they do.  The unit tests do that for
NMock2, but now they need to certify that NUnit does what it says it
does.  They've already done enough of the work on MbUnit, which is our
normal testing framework, so they want to change the unit tests here to
be MbUnit so they don't have to check out Nunits functionality.

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat
Pryce
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:09 PM
To: NMock2 Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

JMock 2 has had to address this issue to support JUnit 3, 4 and TestNG.

We introduced an ExceptionTranslator that is plugged into the Mockery
to translate internal ExpectationExceptions into whatever exception is
used by the test framework.  Then we provide "plugin" packages for
each test framework to plug jMock 2 into that framework by providing a
Mockery subclass that sets the appropriate exception translator.  E.g.
a JUnit3Mockery for JUnit 3, a JUnit4Mockery for JUnit 4, etc.

The same approach could work for NMock 2.

--Nat

On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
> I really don't want to maintain two branches,  the only real
difference
> is the reference and the 'using' statement for now.  So I'll probably
> just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmo...@li...
> [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of
> aci...@ac...
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM
> To: NMock2 Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit
>
>
> >
> > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have
> to
> > do the work anyway, so...
> >
> >
> >
> > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just
keep
> > it internal.
> >
>
> Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we
could
> create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly
> developing
> in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case
I
> think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how
to
> make NMock2 better.
>
> -Richard Holden
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a
browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a
browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NMock-two-dev mailing list
NMo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev