I think that the friendly assembly approach that you are investigating would be better, as it would not require a recompile. It would, however, require generating of keys and signing of assemblies.
On 10/14/07, Evan Worley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have the same problem with NMaven testing, where we can't test non > public > classes due to dll visibility. One solution we were thinking of is adding > friendly dll support to NMaven, then we could have the test assembly be > friends with the assembly that it's testing. The second approach would be > a > compile all of the source into the test artifact, which is the option you > listed above. > > Which do you think is a better approach? > > -Evan > > On 10/12/07, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I was recently working on NUnit tests and I found the current method of > > how > > NMaven handles unit testing inadequete. The problem occurs because C#'s > > protected method is accessible only within the defining class and > > its derived classes, unlike Java which includes package level access. > > NMaven > > currently compiles the test and main artifacts into separate assemblies, > > so > > I also can't test an internal method either. This leaves the ability of > > only > > testing public methods, which are a little too coarse grained for what I > > need. One option that I am considering is to 1) compile main artifact,; > 2) > > compile test artifact, which includes both main and test classes. This > > would > > require compiling the main classes twice but would allow the testing of > > internal methods. I am not sure how people are building > > their .NET applications or whether this option would cause performance > > problems. Thoughts? > > > > Shane > > >
