Thanks for all your feedback... I'm going to stop trying to run with scissors and take a look at TestFixtureSetup and TestFixtureTearDown :-)
I just want to try and re use my code where possible :-) Rob On Jun 24, 10:24 pm, "Jeff Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: > The alternative of not putting them in is worse because people invent their > own problematic workarounds. > > The fact is, people use these frameworks in many different ways for many > purposes. There are valid use-cases for ordering and dependencies but they > should at least be made explicitly. There are also many many bad use-cases > for these tools. I have hope that eventually people who use these tools > incorrectly will learn why they are bad for certain things and will change > their habits. In the meantime, I won't stop them from running with > scissors... ;-) > > Jeff. > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tim Barcz > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: MbUnit Re: Ordering tests > > What's the story behind " using [Test(Order = n)] or > [DependsOn("othertest")] attributes." > > Seems like those would be very bad things to build into a framework, knowing > you, I'm sure you put them there for a reason... > > Tim > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually MbUnit runs tests in a deterministic order because I have found > that it is easier to skim incoming test results when they appear in order > than when they are completely randomized. Determinism improves the user > experience. > > Test developers are still encouraged to avoid depending on the test order or > at the least to be explicit about it by using [Test(Order = n)] or > [DependsOn("othertest")] attributes. > > We could add an assembly-level attribute to MbUnit to randomize test order > but I have no plans to do so at this time. > > Jeff. > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tim Barcz > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: MbUnit Re: Ordering tests > > I think this is a very very good thing. Your tests should never rely on the > order in which they run. In fact some frameworks will in fact jumble all of > the tests and randomize run order so that order will not matter (MbUnit may > be one of these...Jeff?) . > > It's not a C# thing at all but rather a "good unit test practice" > > Tim Barcz > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Rob Langley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > This is probably a basic question for someone who is more competent > with c#. I have written a number of tests grouped in different > classes. For instance: > > BasicTests.cs > [test1] > > [test2] > > AdvancedTests.cs > [Test1] > > Test2] > > When I run them in either TeamCity or Gallio I can't seem to predict > the order they will run? > > Thanks in advance > > Rob > > -- > Tim Barcz > ASPInsiderhttp://timbarcz.devlicio.ushttp://www.twitter.com/timbarcz > > -- > Tim Barcz > ASPInsiderhttp://timbarcz.devlicio.ushttp://www.twitter.com/timbarcz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MbUnit.User" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MbUnitUser?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
