Hi Eno, So, what is you opinion regards the W3C CONF, NUnit integration? Because we wish to do the same with XSLT test suite.
Just to make my intentions, visible: Our QA overall goal is to have a unified integrated NUnit reporting system. A report system with history and regression reports, (and eventually) binded to bug database (maybe I should start an NBugZilla project ;). rafi -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Skiba Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:34 PM To: Atsushi Eno Cc: mono-devel mailing list Subject: Re: spam: suspected: Re: [Mono-devel-list] patch for nunit supportfor xmlconf Atsushi Eno wrote: > If you didn't need any comments, then you could just commit things. > But since you didn't do that, then what you asked is all readers' > comments. I'm just a reader here, without mentioning any kind of > "permission" and I think your way of answering is weird. No? Of course, I wanted comments, that's why I sent the patch to the list. I just was afraid it will not have too much response. The next time I will post it during the Boston working week. > - if it is integrated into "make run-test" in the > containing directory (i.e. in mcs/class/System.XML). No, it's not integrated. Now I understand, what confused in my message. > - if it is to generate a TestFixture class which contains > Test case methods. Impossible to make. w3c opens different files but the code that opens is the same. If I'd write regular TestFixture class, it would look like: [TestFixture] class C { .... [Test] public void f1 () { doc.Load("1.xml"); } [Test] public void f2 () { doc.Load("2.xml"); } And so on, 3000 testcases. > - if it reports "failure" on "you should remove fixed bugs > from list" cases (I mentioned above), since when it > is standalone tests it dictates us to do that. Sorry, I did not understand what do you mean here. How is it related to nunit? > Not all of readers would read the entire patch. They will first > check ChangeLog (and/or the post itself) and see if it is > significant for themselves or not. If that is not understandable, > then they will ask what it means. That's what I did. That's OK, but I did not understand question in your first mail. > See how Rafi answered to the question, which clarifies things. Yes, Rafi gave good reference. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
