Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

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

There are no references to NUnit in the NMock2 assembly itself that I
can see, only in the test suites.  Can you point out the actual
dependency, in case I've missed it?

=20

From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of
Charlie Poole
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:31 AM
To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion'
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

=20

Hi Steve,

=20

Yes, I hadn't understood the situation completely at the point I wrote
that note but I do now.

=20

I've been involved with medical apps, where the issue of tool validation
was quite important. We ended up not having to validate NUnit for the
simple reason that unit testing was not part of QA, but prior to it. The
whole issue is a pretty difficult one when you're trying to be as
efficient as possible in getting your application out. If you'd like to
discuss further how we dealt with this, please contact me off line.

=20

At the moment, I'm on to the different issue of whether NMock2 still
depends on NUnit at runtime, which I think is not so good for users if
true.

=20

Charlie

	=20

=09
________________________________


	From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
Mitcham
	Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:36 AM
	To: NMock2 Development Discussion
	Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

	As I said before, it is a matter of 'validation' of the tools.
We've done the work for MbUnit, but not NUnit.  It's even more
troublesome for us because the NMock tests use their own version of the
nunit.framework.dll, which is yet another '3rd party tool' in the eyes
of the quality assurance auditors.

	=20

	Anyway,  I've finished the work and I'll post the diffs in a zip
to the list, but I'm not going to go any farther with it in terms of
hooking into the existing code base.

	=20

	From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of
Charlie Poole
	Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:29 AM
	To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion'
	Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

	=20

	Hi Steve,

	=20

	I'm quite surprised that there is a dependecy at all - you'd
think I'd know, but I didn't. Is this purely on the basis of how
failures are reported, or is it deeper than that?

	=20

	Charlie

		=20

	=09
________________________________


		From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
Mitcham
		Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:16 PM
		To: NMock2 Development Discussion
		Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit

		I'm in the good position of having gotten my company to
adopt NMock2 into the development process, and to get the permission
needed to work on the OSS side and re-post our changes to the community.
I've been harping on the need to 'play nice' with the communities
providing us all of our test harness stuff recently.

		=20

		Anyway, currently there is a desire to convert our
internal copy of NMock2 to use MbUnit as the testing framework instead
of NUnit. They have to certify the functionality of all the development
tools and they already have what they need for MbUnit so they want to
use it for the test suite.  I'm maintaining parallel trees to map the
internal version and the external versions together.  We have some
versioning requirements that I don't want to leverage on the main
development branch of NMock so I keep it separate.

		=20

		While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix
it', I have to do the work anyway, so...

		=20

		Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or
should I just keep it internal.

		=20

		Again,  I'm not suggesting it,  just trying to get a
feel for whether anyone wants it.