|
From: Owen R. <OR...@th...> - 2004-10-28 16:17:28
|
definitely +1. i was going through and doing this for some of my other projects this weekend. it's long overdue for nmock. cheers, owen. --- R. Owen Rogers ThoughtWorks Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd. ThoughtWorks - Deliver with passion! ThoughtWorks is always looking for talented people who are passionate about technology. To find out more about a career at ThoughtWorks go to http://www.thoughtworks.com/career/. Levi Khatskevitch 28/10/2004 21:32 To: nmo...@li... cc: Owen Rogers/Canada/ThoughtWorks@ThoughtWorks Subject: Strong naming nmock.dll On my current project we keep most of our unit tests in the same assembly as the code they're testing. There are two reasons for that: 1) It keeps things simple with regards to references and the number of assemblies involved 2) It's easy to test internal types since we don't have to make them public or use reflection We keep tests in a sub-folder within each project and exclude it from release builds. It all worked nicely until we needed to strong name one of our assemblies since strongly named assemblies obviously can't reference non-strongly named nmock.dll. I see no harm in strongly naming nmock.dll, especially since NUnit.Framework.dll is already strongly named. So if I don't hear any objections from you I'll just go ahead and add signing to the NAnt build script. Please tell me if you think it's a bad idea. Regards, - Levi |