Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(21) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-04-06 19:30:50
|
Or post it to the Sourceforge bugtracker. Or (even better) break it into smaller, independent patches that are easier to evaluate and apply one at a time. --Nat. On 4/6/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 4/5/06, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > > > > > > > Several days ago I submitted the patch that I had mentioned. I got a > response from the list saying that it required moderator approval because= it > was 42K. I haven't gotten an acceptance or rejection for the post, so I > assume that no one has looked at it. Can one of the moderators take a lo= ok > at my post? > > > Hi Steve, > > Sorry that your message got rejected. Is it possible for you to put the > patch up on some web space and include a URL to it? > > Cheers, > Mike. > > > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-04-06 17:13:31
|
On 4/5/06, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > > Several days ago I submitted the patch that I had mentioned. I got a > response from the list saying that it required moderator approval because= it > was 42K. I haven't gotten an acceptance or rejection for the post, so I > assume that no one has looked at it. Can one of the moderators take a lo= ok > at my post? > Hi Steve, Sorry that your message got rejected. Is it possible for you to put the patch up on some web space and include a URL to it? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-04-05 11:49:41
|
Several days ago I submitted the patch that I had mentioned. I got a response from the list saying that it required moderator approval because it was 42K. I haven't gotten an acceptance or rejection for the post, so I assume that no one has looked at it. Can one of the moderators take a look at my post? |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-31 04:47:30
|
Create a patch using the subversion diff command and send it to this list.
Does your patch work in both .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0?
--Nat.
On 3/29/06, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
>
> I've got a patch to submit, but frankly I have no idea of how to go about
> doing it. Here's the issue that I've run across and implemented a soluti=
on
> for. With the latest get from CVS all the tests, including my new one pa=
ss.
>
> Here's the situation
>
> typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(myCloneableObject)
> should be true if myClonableObject implements ICloneable
>
> [Test]
> public void MockObjectsPassIsAssignableFrom()
> {
> Assert.IsTrue(
> typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(
> new
> Mockery().NewMock<ICloneable>().GetType()));
> }
>
> This test fails because the GetType() returns the _TransparentProxy type
> which does not implement the interface.
>
> I've reimplemented the way MockObjects are created so that this test will
> pass, all the other tests work and I'm ready to submit. However, having
> absolutely no clue as to how to go about doing this I'm stuck.
>
|
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-03-29 13:56:06
|
I've got a patch to submit, but frankly I have no idea of how to go
about doing it. Here's the issue that I've run across and implemented a
solution for. With the latest get from CVS all the tests, including my
new one pass.
=20
Here's the situation
=20
typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(myCloneableObject) should be true if
myClonableObject implements ICloneable
=20
[Test]
public void MockObjectsPassIsAssignableFrom()
{
Assert.IsTrue(
typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(
new Mockery().NewMock<ICloneable>().GetType()));
}
=20
This test fails because the GetType() returns the _TransparentProxy type
which does not implement the interface.
=20
I've reimplemented the way MockObjects are created so that this test
will pass, all the other tests work and I'm ready to submit. However,
having absolutely no clue as to how to go about doing this I'm stuck.
=20
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-23 10:45:38
|
In my experience, when you use tests as a specification of system
behaviour, *all* the names in the test need to clearly express the
intent of the test and document the roles that the named thing plays
in the test. If the test is about what happens when you mock an
interface, that interface should be called IMockedInterface. The test
isn't about kissing frogs. If the domain was about kissing frogs,
IKissable would be fine, but we're writing a mock object library not a
fairy tale!
--Nat.
On 3/21/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 3/20/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > So when writing documentation, please show the extension points being
> > used to extend the DSL syntax and avoid whimsical example code
> > ("kissable" and whatnot) in the tests. It really will make support
> > much easier in the long run.
>
>
> I take your point about us wanting to promote good coding style and the
> readability of the DSL, but why are you unhappy with the "kissable" etc
> stuff? (I noticed you removed that from some code a while back, I guess y=
ou
> found some more recently).
>
> The reason I put the kissable stuff in there was that I was actually the
> existing tests hard to read - I didn't like stuff like "InterfaceToBeMock=
ed"
> much, I find concrete examples clearer. I guess this is personal preferen=
ce,
> though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.
>
>
|
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2006-03-22 16:31:26
|
hi mike, On 21/03/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > I have some time to work on this but am unsure if I need to be an admin o= n > the SF project for me to mess with the site or make releases. you don't need admin access in order to work with the web site -- you just need shell access (which you have). as for making releases, you need to be a release technician (which you are not). anyway, i've turned you into a project admin. anyway, as for changing the web site redirect, you can find the information here: http://sourceforge.net/project/admin/prweb.php?group_id=3D66591 cheers, owen. -- Owen Rogers | http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/exortech | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-21 22:40:45
|
On 3/20/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Also, I modified the 'advanced' tutorial to show how to extend the DSL > when writing custom matchers and stubs. I've rebuilt the pages and uploaded them - the advanced one is now here: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/advanced.html Thanks for working on the docs, Nat, I think they're pretty darn good for open-source documentation. Ooh, yeah, I showed this stuff off to the Vancouver Code Camp and it seemed to go down pretty well. Was thinking we should shove the HTML up at nmock.sf.net, do a release in the file releases area, and get Joe to repoin= t the nmock.org domain (that'd be the last step once we were happy). Is that cool? I have some time to work on this but am unsure if I need to be an admin on the SF project for me to mess with the site or make releases. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-21 22:25:52
|
On 3/20/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>
> So when writing documentation, please show the extension points being
> used to extend the DSL syntax and avoid whimsical example code
> ("kissable" and whatnot) in the tests. It really will make support
> much easier in the long run.
I take your point about us wanting to promote good coding style and the
readability of the DSL, but why are you unhappy with the "kissable" etc
stuff? (I noticed you removed that from some code a while back, I guess you
found some more recently).
The reason I put the kissable stuff in there was that I was actually the
existing tests hard to read - I didn't like stuff like "InterfaceToBeMocked=
"
much, I find concrete examples clearer. I guess this is personal preference=
,
though.
Cheers,
Mike.
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-20 20:29:10
|
Hi all. I committed the changes to make EqualMatchers do the right
thing when given a list. I've also made them do the right thing when
passed multidimensional arrays. This uncovered some nasty
incompatabilities between Microsoft's and Mono's implementation of
arrays in the compiler and VM. We need to get the mono version under
continuous integration to catch these things. What's happening about
that?
Also, I modified the 'advanced' tutorial to show how to extend the DSL
when writing custom matchers and stubs.
I want to (re)emphasise the whole DSL thing. The point of the NMock-2
API is to keep the test code as clear as possible so that it is easy
to maintain when you come back to it months or years after the fact,
or when you have to maintain other people's code. The API is designed
to be a domain-specific language and we (in the jMock team) went to
great pains to design a language that can be embedded in a crappy
language and *seamlessly* extended by the user.
Not all jMock users get the idea of making tests readable or writing
them to be specifications. Very few C# programmers do. It's important
to publicise this idea and demonstrate how it is done in all the
NMock-2 documentation and codebase. We have to lead by example, if
only to reduce support effort when confused users send us code
snippets.
So when writing documentation, please show the extension points being
used to extend the DSL syntax and avoid whimsical example code
("kissable" and whatnot) in the tests. It really will make support
much easier in the long run.
--Nat.
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-16 19:46:16
|
Good point. At the moment I think ICollection is only inherited by IList but if .NET ever does support sets then sets would probably implement ICollection as well. It's probably best to play safe and only support IList, not ICollection. --Nat. On 3/16/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 3/16/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > > So, I was going to add a special case in the EqualMatcher for objects > > that implement ICollection. Can anybody think of a reason not to? > > > I think that makes a lot of sense (we were going to provide custom matche= rs > for this, but if we can modify the default behaviour to work that's even > better, principle of least suprise and all that). > > Does ICollection specify ordering of elements? I'm just wondering because > there's a difference between equality of a list and equality of a set > (although .NET appears to ignore the "set" concept entirely). > > Cheers, > Mike. > > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-16 19:39:54
|
On 3/16/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > So, I was going to add a special case in the EqualMatcher for objects > that implement ICollection. Can anybody think of a reason not to? I think that makes a lot of sense (we were going to provide custom matchers for this, but if we can modify the default behaviour to work that's even better, principle of least suprise and all that). Does ICollection specify ordering of elements? I'm just wondering because there's a difference between equality of a list and equality of a set (although .NET appears to ignore the "set" concept entirely). Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-16 11:19:21
|
At the moment, lists (ArrayList, etc.) and other collections are compared for equality by reference, not by the value of their elements. It's a hangover from the port from Java, because Java defines equals for collections to do the expected thing. Feedback from users where I work shows that this is confusing when setting expectations with a parameter that is a list of expected values. So, I was going to add a special case in the EqualMatcher for objects that implement ICollection. Can anybody think of a reason not to? --Nat. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-16 11:13:59
|
I think we should release RC1 ASAP and get some publicity via the chattering classes of the blogosphere. --Nat. On 3/13/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'd like to try to get NMock2 released as soon as we can. The web site > changes have had positive feedback so far, so I think we're doing well on > that front. What remains to be done before we're ready to ship RC1? > > The tracker has the list matchers that we think we'd like to add, are the= re > any other features that should be considered for RC1? Tracker here: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php > > Personally I'm heavily in favour of doing the minimum necessary to get RC= 1 > out and then respond to feedback as we get it. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-14 23:32:37
|
On 3/13/06, M. Scott Ford <va...@sc...> wrote: > > I had identified a few bugs and submitted patches. Were those ever > commited? I still have the patches lying around somewhere. If I can find > the patches, I will check to see if the tests pass. If they do not, how > do you want me to proceed? I've done some code reformatting (crappy CVS double linespacing bug) so I think I might have stuffed any chance of an existing patch applying cleanly= . If you can dig out what the bugs were, and your fixes, we could try to manually re-apply them. It would be nice to fix any known bugs asap. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: M. S. F. <va...@sc...> - 2006-03-14 01:22:44
|
Mike Mason wrote: > I'd like to try to get NMock2 released as soon as we can. The web site > changes have had positive feedback so far, so I think we're doing well > on that front. What remains to be done before we're ready to ship RC1? > I had identified a few bugs and submitted patches. Were those ever commited? I still have the patches lying around somewhere. If I can find the patches, I will check to see if the tests pass. If they do not, how do you want me to proceed? |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-13 23:28:48
|
Hi folks, I'd like to try to get NMock2 released as soon as we can. The web site changes have had positive feedback so far, so I think we're doing well on that front. What remains to be done before we're ready to ship RC1? The tracker has the list matchers that we think we'd like to add, are there any other features that should be considered for RC1? Tracker here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php Personally I'm heavily in favour of doing the minimum necessary to get RC1 out and then respond to feedback as we get it. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-03-11 20:54:45
|
Looks good. C# is so much better than Java for this sort of thing. S. On 10 Mar 2006, at 18:24, Mike Mason wrote: > On 3/9/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: >> >> One other useful page would be an explanation of version numbering. >> Again, feel free to take that from the jMock site. >> > > I've stolen a bunch of content from the jMock versions page and > added it to > the NMock downloads page (so people can scroll down and see about > versions). > I also put some content on the support page as suggested by Joe. > It's still > looking a little empty though. Updated version of the site at: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > Cheers, > Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-10 18:24:29
|
On 3/9/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > One other useful page would be an explanation of version numbering. > Again, feel free to take that from the jMock site. > I've stolen a bunch of content from the jMock versions page and added it to the NMock downloads page (so people can scroll down and see about versions)= . I also put some content on the support page as suggested by Joe. It's still looking a little empty though. Updated version of the site at: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-03-09 11:09:34
|
It's looking very nice. One other useful page would be an explanation of version numbering.=20 Again, feel free to take that from the jMock site. --Nat. On 3/6/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 3/5/06, Joe Poon <joe...@gm...> wrote: > > > > > a. cheatsheet page - can we print the cheatsheet without the > menu?...because it's tacky and prevents it from fitting on a single page. > > > Fixed the print.css stylesheet, so if you do a print preview or a print i= t > should ditch the menu and look a bit better. There are still a few long > lines on some pages but the cheat sheet works well. > > > > > > b. download page - i like how nunit.org lists the releases on their sit= e > in a tabular format and each release links directly to the "select a mirr= or > download" page on sourceforge (as opposed to directing visitors to the > sourceforge file download area where they could easily get lost) > > > Good idea. I've stolen the stuff off nunit (well, the table styling at > least) and tweaked it a bit. We might want to put clearer warnings around > the fact that NMock2 is not compatible with NMock 1.x. > > > > > c. more links: can we add links to the mailinglist, feature list, and b= ug > list? it'd be great for our empty support page! > > d. source page: i like the "live builds", but do they belong more on th= e > download page? > > > I've copied the text to the downloads page so it now exists in both place= s. > > > > > e. indexers: i don't believe that we mentioned indexers on the website,= if > it's quick, we could throw that into the cheatsheet. > > > Hmm. Sounds like it should be part of the tutorial or advanced features a= s > well as just the cheat sheet. Any ideas for how to demonstrate them in th= e > context of the existing tutorial/demo code? > > > > > f. advanced page: spelling on "In most cases the built-in matchers > provided everything you'll need for creating expectations", just make it > "provide." > > > Fixed. > > > > > g. italics: very minor, a few places where class names/methods in the > description are not italicized (mainly in advanced section - sorry, my ba= d). > > > > And fixed. Updated version of the site up at > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-06 21:15:52
|
On 3/5/06, Joe Poon <joe...@gm...> wrote: > > a. cheatsheet page - can we print the cheatsheet without the > menu?...because it's tacky and prevents it from fitting on a single page. > Fixed the print.css stylesheet, so if you do a print preview or a print it should ditch the menu and look a bit better. There are still a few long lines on some pages but the cheat sheet works well. b. download page - i like how nunit.org lists the releases on their site in > a tabular format and each release links directly to the "select a mirror > download" page on sourceforge (as opposed to directing visitors to the > sourceforge file download area where they could easily get lost) > Good idea. I've stolen the stuff off nunit (well, the table styling at least) and tweaked it a bit. We might want to put clearer warnings around the fact that NMock2 is not compatible with NMock 1.x. c. more links: can we add links to the mailinglist, feature list, and bug > list? it'd be great for our empty support page! > d. source page: i like the "live builds", but do they belong more on the > download page? > I've copied the text to the downloads page so it now exists in both places. e. indexers: i don't believe that we mentioned indexers on the website, if > it's quick, we could throw that into the cheatsheet. > Hmm. Sounds like it should be part of the tutorial or advanced features as well as just the cheat sheet. Any ideas for how to demonstrate them in the context of the existing tutorial/demo code? f. advanced page: spelling on "In most cases the built-in matchers provided > everything you'll need for creating expectations", just make it "provide.= " > Fixed. g. italics: very minor, a few places where class names/methods in the > description are not italicized (mainly in advanced section - sorry, my ba= d). > And fixed. Updated version of the site up at http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Joe R. <joe...@gm...> - 2006-03-06 17:17:35
|
I was thinking about the maintenance issue with two versions when I wrote the email. It was easy to suggest since I wouldn't be maintaining it :-) Anyway, I do feel making it more printable will make it more useful.=20 I've currently taken the PDF version and jotted the differences on it in pen. Keep up the great work, -joe On 3/6/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 3/6/06, Joe Ross <joe...@gm...> wrote: > > In reference to the cheatsheet... > > > > There's a slightly different PDF version of this document here [1]. > > I'm not sure which one came first, but the PDF version prints much > > nicer than HTML as expected. The two differences between the > > documents that jump out at me are the .NET 2.0 addition to "Setting > > Up" and the change from ".Verify" to > > ".VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet" in the "Verification" > section. > > > > Is there any way to update the PDF and use that in addition to the HTML > version? > > > > The PDF source is a Word document that Kerry Todyruik put together, and h= e > did a PDF export of it. I'm not too keen on keeping two versions in sync = but > I think we can get the HTML to print nicely -- the jMock site (on which o= urs > is based) has a "print" CSS style attached to it. I think the NMock site > also has this but the stylesheet needs to be fixed up. > > I'll try and fix the stylesheet so it prints nicely from a browser, > hopefully this will be good enough for most uses. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-03-06 17:10:25
|
On 3/6/06, Joe Ross <joe...@gm...> wrote: > > In reference to the cheatsheet... > > There's a slightly different PDF version of this document here [1]. > I'm not sure which one came first, but the PDF version prints much > nicer than HTML as expected. The two differences between the > documents that jump out at me are the .NET 2.0 addition to "Setting > Up" and the change from ".Verify" to > ".VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet" in the "Verification" section. > > Is there any way to update the PDF and use that in addition to the HTML > version? > The PDF source is a Word document that Kerry Todyruik put together, and he did a PDF export of it. I'm not too keen on keeping two versions in sync bu= t I think we can get the HTML to print nicely -- the jMock site (on which our= s is based) has a "print" CSS style attached to it. I think the NMock site also has this but the stylesheet needs to be fixed up. I'll try and fix the stylesheet so it prints nicely from a browser, hopefully this will be good enough for most uses. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Joe R. <joe...@gm...> - 2006-03-06 14:23:22
|
In reference to the cheatsheet... There's a slightly different PDF version of this document here [1].=20 I'm not sure which one came first, but the PDF version prints much nicer than HTML as expected. The two differences between the documents that jump out at me are the .NET 2.0 addition to "Setting Up" and the change from ".Verify" to ".VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet" in the "Verification" section. Is there any way to update the PDF and use that in addition to the HTML ver= sion? -joe [1] http://www.todyruik.com/files/NMock2QuickReference.pdf On 3/6/06, Joe Poon <joe...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Great work on getting the NMock2 web site together in short-order, it's > filling out quite nicely! > > Just some feedback: > a. cheatsheet page - can we print the cheatsheet without the menu?...beca= use > it's tacky and prevents it from fitting on a single page. > b. download page - i like how nunit.org lists the releases on their site = in > a tabular format and each release links directly to the "select a mirror > download" page on sourceforge (as opposed to directing visitors to the > sourceforge file download area where they could easily get lost) > c. more links: can we add links to the mailinglist, feature list, and bug > list? it'd be great for our empty support page! > d. source page: i like the "live builds", but do they belong more on the > download page? > e. indexers: i don't believe that we mentioned indexers on the website, i= f > it's quick, we could throw that into the cheatsheet. > f. advanced page: spelling on "In most cases the built-in matchers provid= ed > everything you'll need for creating expectations", just make it "provide.= " > g. italics: very minor, a few places where class names/methods in the > description are not italicized (mainly in advanced section - sorry, my ba= d). > > Lookin' good! > - Joe > > On 3/1/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > > > I've pulled together the tutorial content and the stuff that Scott Ford > and Joe Poon were working on (they actually both did some similar stuff w= ith > custom matchers and I have merged their contributions into the "Advanced" > page -- thanks for the content guys!). > > > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > > > As part of a serious push to releasing this I'd like feedback about wha= t > you do/don't like about the site and any changes you'd like. > > > > In parallel I've started putting in issues for the code, which I'll tal= k > about in a different thread to save cluttering this one. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mike. > > > > |
|
From: Joe P. <joe...@gm...> - 2006-03-06 06:14:50
|
Hi Mike, Great work on getting the NMock2 web site together in short-order, it's filling out quite nicely! Just some feedback: a. cheatsheet page - can we print the cheatsheet without the menu?...becaus= e it's tacky and prevents it from fitting on a single page. b. download page - i like how nunit.org lists the releases on their site in a tabular format and each release links directly to the "select a mirror download" page on sourceforge (as opposed to directing visitors to the sourceforge file download area where they could easily get lost) c. more links: can we add links to the mailinglist, feature list, and bug list? it'd be great for our empty support page! d. source page: i like the "live builds", but do they belong more on the download page? e. indexers: i don't believe that we mentioned indexers on the website, if it's quick, we could throw that into the cheatsheet. f. advanced page: spelling on "In most cases the built-in matchers provided everything you'll need for creating expectations", just make it "provide." g. italics: very minor, a few places where class names/methods in the description are not italicized (mainly in advanced section - sorry, my bad)= . Lookin' good! - Joe On 3/1/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > I've pulled together the tutorial content and the stuff that Scott Ford > and Joe Poon were working on (they actually both did some similar stuff w= ith > custom matchers and I have merged their contributions into the "Advanced" > page -- thanks for the content guys!). > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ <http://the.earth.li/%7Emgm/nmock2/> > > As part of a serious push to releasing this I'd like feedback about what > you do/don't like about the site and any changes you'd like. > > In parallel I've started putting in issues for the code, which I'll talk > about in a different thread to save cluttering this one. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
