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: 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. |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-12 18:11:38
|
So will there never be an actual release with 1.1 support? If it were me, I would make one first, then move on. Here's my interest: I'd like to bundle some mock framework with NUnit. I incline toward NMock2. But NUnit 3.0 will have separately available framework downloads for .NET 1.1 and 2.0+ and I would like to have matching mock frameworks to bundle. For my own tests, the point is moot, since the core testing engine will be switching to .NET 2.0. It's only for user support that I'm concerned. Charlie > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Steve Mitcham > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:58 AM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > We are going to label the trunk before we start making > modifications to remove 1.1 support from the project, so if > anyone wants to become the official 1.1 maintainer, then they > can start a branch from that point and keep the 1.1 code alive. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Charlie Poole > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:15 AM > To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion' > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > Is it definitely decided that you guys won't support 1.1 any > longer? If that's true, I think it would be important to > facilitate others continuing to support it. > > It would reassure me to see a public statement of direction > of some kind that covered what CLRs you will support. I'm > kind of hoping that the support will match what NUnit > supports, but I realize you can only do what you can do. > > Charlie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmo...@li... > > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > > Steve Mitcham > > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:17 AM > > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > > > We should also do the work to close off the 1.1 support and > move the > > solution file forward to 2005 and takeout all the #if directives. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmo...@li... > > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > > aci...@ac... > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:39 PM > > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > > > I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 > really look > > alive again, and while the new RC that should be coming > soon will be a > > big boost we need to cleanup SourceForge and the website so that we > > aren't showing outdated information. > > > > Proposals: > > > > Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. > > Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion to get > > away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. > > Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current developers > > Decide who should have commit access to the code. > > > > There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I can > > articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these ideas is > > welcome and encouraged. > > > > -Richard Holden > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-12 17:59:12
|
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. 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. Charlie _____ 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? 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 Hi Steve, Yes, I hadn't understood the situation completely at the point I wrote that note but I do now. 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. 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. Charlie _____ 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. 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. 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 Hi Steve, 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? Charlie _____ 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. 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. While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to do the work anyway, so. Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep it internal. Again, I'm not suggesting it, just trying to get a feel for whether anyone wants it. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-12 13:58:03
|
We are going to label the trunk before we start making modifications to remove 1.1 support from the project, so if anyone wants to become the official 1.1 maintainer, then they can start a branch from that point and keep the 1.1 code alive. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Charlie Poole Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:15 AM To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion' Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup Is it definitely decided that you guys won't support 1.1 any longer? If that's true, I think it would be important to facilitate others continuing to support it. It would reassure me to see a public statement of direction=20 of some kind that covered what CLRs you will support. I'm kind of hoping that the support will match what NUnit=20 supports, but I realize you can only do what you can do. Charlie=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li...=20 > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On=20 > Behalf Of Steve Mitcham > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:17 AM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup >=20 > We should also do the work to close off the 1.1 support and=20 > move the solution file forward to 2005 and takeout all the=20 > #if directives. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On=20 > Behalf Of aci...@ac... > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:39 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup >=20 > I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2=20 > really look alive again, and while the new RC that should be=20 > coming soon will be a big boost we need to cleanup=20 > SourceForge and the website so that we aren't showing=20 > outdated information. >=20 > Proposals: >=20 > Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. > Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion=20 > to get away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. > Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current=20 > developers Decide who should have commit access to the code. >=20 > There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I=20 > can articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these=20 > ideas is welcome and encouraged. >=20 > -Richard Holden >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and=20 > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>=20 > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and=20 > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>=20 > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev >=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-12 13:56:19
|
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. |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-10 17:30:34
|
Hi Steve, Yes, I hadn't understood the situation completely at the point I wrote that note but I do now. 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. 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. Charlie _____ 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. 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. 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 Hi Steve, 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? Charlie _____ 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. 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. While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to do the work anyway, so. Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep it internal. Again, I'm not suggesting it, just trying to get a feel for whether anyone wants it. |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-10 17:15:33
|
Is it definitely decided that you guys won't support 1.1 any longer? If that's true, I think it would be important to facilitate others continuing to support it. It would reassure me to see a public statement of direction of some kind that covered what CLRs you will support. I'm kind of hoping that the support will match what NUnit supports, but I realize you can only do what you can do. Charlie > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On > Behalf Of Steve Mitcham > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:17 AM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > We should also do the work to close off the 1.1 support and > move the solution file forward to 2005 and takeout all the > #if directives. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On > Behalf Of aci...@ac... > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:39 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup > > I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 > really look alive again, and while the new RC that should be > coming soon will be a big boost we need to cleanup > SourceForge and the website so that we aren't showing > outdated information. > > Proposals: > > Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. > Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion > to get away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. > Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current > developers Decide who should have commit access to the code. > > There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I > can articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these > ideas is welcome and encouraged. > > -Richard Holden > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and > a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> > http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-10 17:15:33
|
Hi All, Replying to my own post: I see now that Steve is not concerned with the test framework users are using, but with the one that is used to test NMock2. However, it does look as if NMock2 also has a reference to NUnit, so I changed the subject. For a long time I had planned to use NMock2 for NUnit's tests. Since we ship the tests, that would mean shipping the NMock2 dll as well. When I set about to do it earlier this year, I ran into a hitch. The problem is that NMock2 had a reference to NUnit. As a result, it would not load in my (newer) NUnit build. >From Nat's description of what JMock 2 does, I'm guessin that the exceptions are translated based on name strings rather than types. That's what NUnit does for its own exceptions and for "foreign" exceptions like csUnit's or Microsoft's. So, in the case of NUnit, you could throw an exception of your own, so long as it's name was NUnit.Framework.AssertionException. Alternatively, you could throw your own exception and let the test frameworks deal with it. For most frameworks - definitely for NUnit - your unknown exception would show up as an error. We could easily modify NUnit to convert it to a failure, based on the name of your exception, but there isn't currently much difference between how we handle errors and failures anyway. Charlie _____ From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Charlie Poole Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:29 AM To: 'NMock2 Development Discussion' Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit Hi Steve, 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? Charlie _____ 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. 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. While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to do the work anyway, so. Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep it internal. Again, I'm not suggesting it, just trying to get a feel for whether anyone wants it. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-09 14:35:58
|
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. |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2007-11-09 14:29:05
|
Hi Steve, 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? Charlie _____ 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. 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. While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to do the work anyway, so. Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep it internal. Again, I'm not suggesting it, just trying to get a feel for whether anyone wants it. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-09 14:16:33
|
We should also do the work to close off the 1.1 support and move the solution file forward to 2005 and takeout all the #if directives. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of aci...@ac... Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:39 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 really look alive again, and while the new RC that should be coming soon will be a big boost we need to cleanup SourceForge and the website so that we aren't showing outdated information. Proposals: Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion to get away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current developers Decide who should have commit access to the code. There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I can articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these ideas is welcome and encouraged. -Richard Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 21:49:33
|
Our customer requires us to 'certify' that any third party tool we use 'works correctly'. The unit tests in NMock2 are sufficient for that proof, if and only if, NUnit is 'certified' in the same way. We've done the work to satisfy the customer that MbUnit functions for our purposes, but not for NUnit. We're trying to avoid that pain, so I'm putting MbUnit in the place of NUnit for our internal NMock2 build. It's irrelevant to people outside my company for the exact point of your question, but I posted it in case anyone cared. It's convoluted and doesn't always make sense, however, in the case of MbUnit the verification team came across a defect that was already existing in the MbUnit queue, but I'd forgotten about. We had at least one test case that was giving a false positive. I'm working on getting them to use the MbUnit test suite from the directory and add tests to that suite so we can return the tests and fixes for MbUnit in the same way I'm working NMock2. There's large sections of our codebase that can't even touch .NET because Microsoft could deliver a high enough guarantee with respect to the performance of the JIT, so verification is a very big deal for us. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat Pryce Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:24 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit I'm confused. Why does it matter to NMock 2 *users* what test framework is used by the NMock 2 *developers*? --Nat On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > I wasn't really thinking along those lines. We've been using NMock2 > with MbUnit. The big issue for them is the NUnit framework being used > in NMock2.AcceptanceTests and NMock2.Tests projects. They need to prove > that the tools do what they say they do. The unit tests do that for > NMock2, but now they need to certify that NUnit does what it says it > does. They've already done enough of the work on MbUnit, which is our > normal testing framework, so they want to change the unit tests here to > be MbUnit so they don't have to check out Nunits functionality. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat > Pryce > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:09 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > JMock 2 has had to address this issue to support JUnit 3, 4 and TestNG. > > We introduced an ExceptionTranslator that is plugged into the Mockery > to translate internal ExpectationExceptions into whatever exception is > used by the test framework. Then we provide "plugin" packages for > each test framework to plug jMock 2 into that framework by providing a > Mockery subclass that sets the appropriate exception translator. E.g. > a JUnit3Mockery for JUnit 3, a JUnit4Mockery for JUnit 4, etc. > > The same approach could work for NMock 2. > > --Nat > > On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > > I really don't want to maintain two branches, the only real > difference > > is the reference and the 'using' statement for now. So I'll probably > > just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmo...@li... > > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > > aci...@ac... > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM > > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > > > > > > > > > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have > > to > > > do the work anyway, so... > > > > > > > > > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just > keep > > > it internal. > > > > > > > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we > could > > create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly > > developing > > in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case > I > > think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how > to > > make NMock2 better. > > > > -Richard Holden > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2007-11-08 21:32:42
|
Can I also suggest you take a look at jMock2? The new syntax allows refactoring, a la Rhino, but is better IMHO. S On 8 Nov 2007, at 20:39, aci...@ac... wrote: > I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 really look > alive again, and while the new RC that should be coming soon will > be a big > boost we need to cleanup SourceForge and the website so that we aren't > showing outdated information. > > Proposals: > > Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. > Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion to get > away > from NMock 1.0 legacy code. > Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current developers > Decide who should have commit access to the code. > > There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I can > articulate > them I'll send them on. Discussion on these ideas is welcome and > encouraged. > > -Richard Holden > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > Steve Freeman Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006 http://www.m3p.co.uk M3P Limited. Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ. Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627 |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2007-11-08 21:24:04
|
I'm confused. Why does it matter to NMock 2 *users* what test framework is used by the NMock 2 *developers*? --Nat On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > I wasn't really thinking along those lines. We've been using NMock2 > with MbUnit. The big issue for them is the NUnit framework being used > in NMock2.AcceptanceTests and NMock2.Tests projects. They need to prove > that the tools do what they say they do. The unit tests do that for > NMock2, but now they need to certify that NUnit does what it says it > does. They've already done enough of the work on MbUnit, which is our > normal testing framework, so they want to change the unit tests here to > be MbUnit so they don't have to check out Nunits functionality. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat > Pryce > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:09 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > JMock 2 has had to address this issue to support JUnit 3, 4 and TestNG. > > We introduced an ExceptionTranslator that is plugged into the Mockery > to translate internal ExpectationExceptions into whatever exception is > used by the test framework. Then we provide "plugin" packages for > each test framework to plug jMock 2 into that framework by providing a > Mockery subclass that sets the appropriate exception translator. E.g. > a JUnit3Mockery for JUnit 3, a JUnit4Mockery for JUnit 4, etc. > > The same approach could work for NMock 2. > > --Nat > > On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > > I really don't want to maintain two branches, the only real > difference > > is the reference and the 'using' statement for now. So I'll probably > > just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmo...@li... > > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > > aci...@ac... > > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM > > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > > > > > > > > > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have > > to > > > do the work anyway, so... > > > > > > > > > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just > keep > > > it internal. > > > > > > > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we > could > > create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly > > developing > > in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case > I > > think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how > to > > make NMock2 better. > > > > -Richard Holden > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a > browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 21:20:16
|
I wasn't really thinking along those lines. We've been using NMock2 with MbUnit. The big issue for them is the NUnit framework being used in NMock2.AcceptanceTests and NMock2.Tests projects. They need to prove that the tools do what they say they do. The unit tests do that for NMock2, but now they need to certify that NUnit does what it says it does. They've already done enough of the work on MbUnit, which is our normal testing framework, so they want to change the unit tests here to be MbUnit so they don't have to check out Nunits functionality. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat Pryce Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:09 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit JMock 2 has had to address this issue to support JUnit 3, 4 and TestNG. We introduced an ExceptionTranslator that is plugged into the Mockery to translate internal ExpectationExceptions into whatever exception is used by the test framework. Then we provide "plugin" packages for each test framework to plug jMock 2 into that framework by providing a Mockery subclass that sets the appropriate exception translator. E.g. a JUnit3Mockery for JUnit 3, a JUnit4Mockery for JUnit 4, etc. The same approach could work for NMock 2. --Nat On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > I really don't want to maintain two branches, the only real difference > is the reference and the 'using' statement for now. So I'll probably > just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > aci...@ac... > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > > > > > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have > to > > do the work anyway, so... > > > > > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep > > it internal. > > > > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we could > create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly > developing > in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case I > think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how to > make NMock2 better. > > -Richard Holden > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2007-11-08 21:08:35
|
JMock 2 has had to address this issue to support JUnit 3, 4 and TestNG. We introduced an ExceptionTranslator that is plugged into the Mockery to translate internal ExpectationExceptions into whatever exception is used by the test framework. Then we provide "plugin" packages for each test framework to plug jMock 2 into that framework by providing a Mockery subclass that sets the appropriate exception translator. E.g. a JUnit3Mockery for JUnit 3, a JUnit4Mockery for JUnit 4, etc. The same approach could work for NMock 2. --Nat On 08/11/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > I really don't want to maintain two branches, the only real difference > is the reference and the 'using' statement for now. So I'll probably > just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of > aci...@ac... > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > > > > > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have > to > > do the work anyway, so... > > > > > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep > > it internal. > > > > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we could > create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly > developing > in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case I > think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how to > make NMock2 better. > > -Richard Holden > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 20:50:39
|
The first item definitely, I'd like to get it on a clean slate by getting stuff related to NMock1 out of the list. We've had discussion before about moving from CVS into subversion. Again, this is an area where it really doesn't matter to me, I've got both clients loaded so it doesn't really matter. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of aci...@ac... Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:39 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock Cleanup I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 really look alive again, and while the new RC that should be coming soon will be a big boost we need to cleanup SourceForge and the website so that we aren't showing outdated information. Proposals: Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion to get away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current developers Decide who should have commit access to the code. There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I can articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these ideas is welcome and encouraged. -Richard Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2007-11-08 20:39:41
|
I've been thinking about what we need to do to make NMock2 really look alive again, and while the new RC that should be coming soon will be a big boost we need to cleanup SourceForge and the website so that we aren't showing outdated information. Proposals: Close all bugs/Support requests that are not related to NMock2. Import the current nmock2 directory from CVS into Subversion to get away from NMock 1.0 legacy code. Update the SourceForge developer list to reflect current developers Decide who should have commit access to the code. There are more ideas floating around in my head and when I can articulate them I'll send them on. Discussion on these ideas is welcome and encouraged. -Richard Holden |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 20:33:20
|
I really don't want to maintain two branches, the only real difference is the reference and the 'using' statement for now. So I'll probably just post the changes to my blog and leave the actual code tree alone. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of aci...@ac... Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:25 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] NUnit vs. MbUnit > > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to > do the work anyway, so... > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep > it internal. > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we could create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly developing in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case I think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how to make NMock2 better. -Richard Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2007-11-08 20:25:49
|
On Thu, November 8, 2007 1:04 pm, Steve Mitcham wrote: > Can someone familiar with the process of posting an RC build to an > project please let me know what I need to do and I'll go ahead and get a > build posted to sourceforge? This URL looks like it has all the information you need. https://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6445&group_id=1 -Richard Holden |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2007-11-08 20:25:28
|
> > While I am of the mind of 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it', I have to > do the work anyway, so... > > > > Would anyone be interested in the move to MbUnit or should I just keep > it internal. > Personally I wouldn't use it, but depending on difficulty maybe we could create a branch/derivation of NMock that uses MbUnit, possibly developing in parallel contributing code and ideas between the two. In this case I think more options make for a better user base and more ideas of how to make NMock2 better. -Richard Holden |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 20:16:12
|
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. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-08 20:04:33
|
Can someone familiar with the process of posting an RC build to an project please let me know what I need to do and I'll go ahead and get a build posted to sourceforge? |
|
From: Drew N. <dre...@ya...> - 2007-11-06 15:44:02
|
Does someone have a link to a recent version of NMock2 that is capable of r= aising events? I can't access SourceForge's CVS server from the office, pr= esumably due to a firewall restriction (can't even telnet to the port).=0A= =0AThere's been murmurings of interest on this list for a public RC build. = Any chance of seeing this soon?=0A=0ADrew.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A ___________= ________________________________________________=0AYahoo! Answers - Got a q= uestion? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it=0Anow.=0Ahttp://uk.answ= ers.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2007-10-25 15:53:45
|
After looking at all the tracker items on SourceForge, I believe we should do a release and leave the remaining items for after the release. Though I don't think it necessarily needs to be an RC2, I believe especially with our future plans that this should be a full version release. -Richard Holden P.S. If I had the necessary information and rights I could take some time in the next few days and get a release out on SourceForge. On Wed, October 24, 2007 2:07 pm, Steve Mitcham wrote: > As is the case with side development, the explosion of fires in my day > job has eliminated my time in the immediate future. However, I believe > unless there is any pressing need for the repair of any of the remaining > items in the database there isn't anything preventing someone from > building the RC2 build and posting it to sourceforge. > > The latest discussions about the nature of the 'Cause' addition to the > syntax can be tabled until after an RC release. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmo...@li... > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Andrey > Shchekin > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:55 AM > To: NMock2 Development Discussion > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] NMock2 RC2 status > > Hello all, > Do you have a thought on when NMock2 RC2 will be completed? > I am quite interested in it, but it seems last discussions have died. > > Thanks, > Andrey. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > - > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
