It sounds like you might want to build up the test suite dynamically instead of using ordinary test methods. It's a little bit harder to do this way but you will have explicit control over test ordering.
Take a look at [DynamicTestFactory]. Jeff. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Danny <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear sirs and ladies. > > We would like to have complex acceptance tests, which are composed of > individual test methods. The complex test defines the flow of the unit > test methods of which it is composed and this definition is read at > run-time from some data source (currently XML file). > > We envision the complex test as a test fixture which reads the flow > definition in its SetUp method, configures the flow of the test > methods and lets the test run. It is possible that the same test > method is run more than once. > > Of course, the tests are stateful, where any test method (but the > first) works on the state left by the previous one. (We are aware of > the Gallio.Ambient project and may be we wil consider it). > > Anyway, our immediate issue is that we do not know how to impose test > ordering based on some run-time specification. The Order attribute > seems to be inadequate for our needs, since it implies compile-time > test ordering specification. > > Any hints as to how to do it right are appreciated. > > Thanks. > > -- > > 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]<mbunituser%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en. > > > -- 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.
