From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-13 13:22:04
|
The issue with the NUnit references involves the fact that the nunit.framework.dll used to build the NMock2 test suite is version 2.2.0.0 and the version that is run by the nant that is delivered with NMock2 is 2.2.8.0. I fixed it by overwriting the 2.2.0.0 verison with the one in the nant distribution in the tools directory. =20 From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Charlie Poole Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:59 AM To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion' Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit =20 I may have misunderstood some of the comments on this thread that seemed to suggest some special effort was needed to make sure NMock2 could work with different test frameworks - in particular the comment (Nat's I think) about incorporating something similar to JMock's code for dealing with alternative exceptions. =20 I also remember having some reference problems about 18 months ago, when I tried to incorporate NMock2 with NUnit, but it's not worth trying to figure it out - I'll just look at the latest. =20 Charlie =20 =09 ________________________________ From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve Mitcham Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:56 AM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit 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. |