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

[Mike R. <mik...@gm...>]

+1 to strong-naming assemblies.

-1 to keeping unit tests in the same assemblies as the code they are
testing. But that's just my opinion...

Mike

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:34:21 +0630, Owen Rogers
<or...@th...> wrote:
>  
> 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 
>  


-- 
mike roberts | http://mikeroberts.thoughtworks.net/ |
http://www.thoughtworks.com/