[Nmock-general] Re: Strong naming nmock.dll

[Owen R. <OR...@th...>]

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