Last 30 days

• Nov 13, 2009

  issue 21 (SVN Repository Missing Version 1.0.5 tag) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Status: WontFix

  Status: WontFix
• Nov 13, 2009

  issue 21 (SVN Repository Missing Version 1.0.5 tag) commented on by fabiomaulo   -   if you want contribute in #TestsEx, for CF, let me know. Thanks.

  if you want contribute in #TestsEx, for CF, let me know. Thanks.
• Nov 13, 2009

  issue 21 (SVN Repository Missing Version 1.0.5 tag) commented on by fabiomaulo   -   yes it is... the reason is in the main page of this site. To be more clear http://sharptestex.codeplex.com/

  yes it is... the reason is in the main page of this site. To be more clear http://sharptestex.codeplex.com/
• Nov 13, 2009

  issue 21 (SVN Repository Missing Version 1.0.5 tag) commented on by JesseDickey   -   After further investigation it seems that the trunk might not have been modified since the 1.0.5 release. Is this the case?

  After further investigation it seems that the trunk might not have been modified since the 1.0.5 release. Is this the case?
• Nov 13, 2009

  issue 21 (SVN Repository Missing Version 1.0.5 tag) reported by JesseDickey   -   The SVN repository does not have a 1.0.5 tag. I wanted to checkout the latest stable version and see if I could modify it to be Compact Framework compatible but it is not available. I don't want to use the development version (trunk) or a previous version(NunitEx104 tag).

  The SVN repository does not have a 1.0.5 tag. I wanted to checkout the latest stable version and see if I could modify it to be Compact Framework compatible but it is not available. I don't want to use the development version (trunk) or a previous version(NunitEx104 tag).

Earlier this year

• Aug 13, 2009

  SyntaxOverview (NUnitEx's syntax overview) Wiki page edited by fabiomaulo   -   Revision r136 Edited wiki page through web user interface.

  Revision r136 Edited wiki page through web user interface.
• Aug 11, 2009

  NUnitEx1_0_5.zip (NUnitEx release 1.0.5 (for NUnit2.5.2)) file uploaded by fabiomaulo   -  

  Labels: Featured Type-Archive

  Labels: Featured Type-Archive
• Aug 11, 2009

  r135 (Actualized relese notes) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Actualized relese notes

  Actualized relese notes
• Aug 11, 2009

  r134 (Fix NUnitEx-20 (new feature)) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Fix NUnitEx-20 (new feature)

  Fix NUnitEx-20 (new feature)
• Aug 11, 2009

  issue 20 (Ordered, OrderedAscending, OrderedDescending) changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.5

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.5
• Aug 11, 2009

  issue 20 (Ordered, OrderedAscending, OrderedDescending) reported by fabiomaulo   -   The Ordered should mean: Ordered Ascending or Descending. Examples (new[] { 1, 2, 3 }).Should().Be.Ordered(); (new[] { 3, 2, 1 }).Should().Be.Ordered(); (new[] { 1, 2, 3 }).Should().Be.OrderedAscending(); (new[] { 3, 2, 1 }).Should().Be.OrderedDescending();

  The Ordered should mean: Ordered Ascending or Descending. Examples (new[] { 1, 2, 3 }).Should().Be.Ordered(); (new[] { 3, 2, 1 }).Should().Be.Ordered(); (new[] { 1, 2, 3 }).Should().Be.OrderedAscending(); (new[] { 3, 2, 1 }).Should().Be.OrderedDescending();
• Aug 11, 2009

  r133 (NUnit 2.5.2) committed by fabiomaulo   -   NUnit 2.5.2

  NUnit 2.5.2
• Aug 11, 2009

  r132 (Tag of release 1.0.4 (the last for NUnit2.5.1)) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Tag of release 1.0.4 (the last for NUnit2.5.1)

  Tag of release 1.0.4 (the last for NUnit2.5.1)
• Aug 04, 2009

  issue 19 (Have.Attribute for methods) commented on by jfromani...@gmail.com   -   Yes that was my first thought but once you make typeof(...) you get a instance of Type then Member cannot infer the source of the expression. typeof(MyType).Member<MyType>(t => t.AMethod(...))... or maybe using sometime from Daniel Kazzulino: http://digg.com/u19xsy

  Yes that was my first thought but once you make typeof(...) you get a instance of Type then Member cannot infer the source of the expression. typeof(MyType).Member<MyType>(t => t.AMethod(...))... or maybe using sometime from Daniel Kazzulino: http://digg.com/u19xsy
• Aug 04, 2009

  issue 19 (Have.Attribute for methods) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   I like it typeof(MyType).Member(t=> t.Amethod(p1,p2)) .Should().Have.Attribute<CustomAttribute>() .And.ValueOf.Prop1.Should()... mmmm perhaps it should need some more investigation only to avoid strings and perhaps we should improve Satisfay

  Status: Accepted

  I like it typeof(MyType).Member(t=> t.Amethod(p1,p2)) .Should().Have.Attribute<CustomAttribute>() .And.ValueOf.Prop1.Should()... mmmm perhaps it should need some more investigation only to avoid strings and perhaps we should improve Satisfay

  Status: Accepted
• Aug 04, 2009

  issue 19 (Have.Attribute for methods) commented on by jfromani...@gmail.com   -   also you can use this: public static class GetAttributeExtesion { public static T GetAttribute<T>(this ICustomAttributeProvider provider) where T : Attribute { return (T)provider.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (T), true).FirstOrDefault(); } } then: var attribute = typeof (SomeType).GetAttribute<SomeAttribute>(); attribute.Should().Not.Be.Null(); attribute.SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); attribute.SomePropertyC.Should().Be.True(); and: var methodAttribute = typeof(SomeType) .GetMethod("SomeMethod") .GetAttribute<SomeMethodAttribute>(); methodAttribute .Should().Not.Be.Null(); methodAttribute .SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); and even: var parameterAttribute = typeof(SomeType) .GetMethod("SomeMethod") .GetParameters().FirstOrDefault(p => p.Name == "SomeMethodParameter") .GetAttribute<SomeMethodAttribute>(); parameterAttribute.Should().Not.Be.Null(); parameterAttribute.SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); The people of MonoRail and Asp.Net mvc use attributes in parameters.

  also you can use this: public static class GetAttributeExtesion { public static T GetAttribute<T>(this ICustomAttributeProvider provider) where T : Attribute { return (T)provider.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (T), true).FirstOrDefault(); } } then: var attribute = typeof (SomeType).GetAttribute<SomeAttribute>(); attribute.Should().Not.Be.Null(); attribute.SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); attribute.SomePropertyC.Should().Be.True(); and: var methodAttribute = typeof(SomeType) .GetMethod("SomeMethod") .GetAttribute<SomeMethodAttribute>(); methodAttribute .Should().Not.Be.Null(); methodAttribute .SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); and even: var parameterAttribute = typeof(SomeType) .GetMethod("SomeMethod") .GetParameters().FirstOrDefault(p => p.Name == "SomeMethodParameter") .GetAttribute<SomeMethodAttribute>(); parameterAttribute.Should().Not.Be.Null(); parameterAttribute.SomeProperty.Should().Be.True(); The people of MonoRail and Asp.Net mvc use attributes in parameters.
• Aug 04, 2009

  issue 19 (Have.Attribute for methods) commented on by jfromani...@gmail.com   -   The link http://digg.com/u19xe3

  The link http://digg.com/u19xe3
• Aug 04, 2009

  issue 19 (Have.Attribute for methods) reported by jfromani...@gmail.com   -   When you had need it ? It could be used to test if certain method or property has a custom attribute. Which is the syntax you are proposing ? typeof(someType).GetMethod("SomeMethod").Should().Have.Attribute<CustomeAtt >(); Maybe we can take advantage of ICustomAttributeProvider. Types, methods and parameters info implements this interface. As described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/system.reflection.icustomattributeprovider.getcustomattributes.a spx

  When you had need it ? It could be used to test if certain method or property has a custom attribute. Which is the syntax you are proposing ? typeof(someType).GetMethod("SomeMethod").Should().Have.Attribute<CustomeAtt >(); Maybe we can take advantage of ICustomAttributeProvider. Types, methods and parameters info implements this interface. As described here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/system.reflection.icustomattributeprovider.getcustomattributes.a spx
• Jul 28, 2009

  issue 18 (ParamName when handling exceptions is missing) commented on by ola.fjelddahl   -   Of course...

  Of course...
• Jul 28, 2009

  SyntaxOverview (NUnitEx's syntax overview) Wiki page edited by fabiomaulo
• Jul 28, 2009

  r130 (Actualization version of current trunk) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Actualization version of current trunk

  Actualization version of current trunk
• Jul 28, 2009

  NUnitEx1_0_4.zip (NUnitEx release 1.0.4 (for NUnit2.5.1)) file uploaded by fabiomaulo   -  

  Labels: Featured Type-Archive

  Labels: Featured Type-Archive
• Jul 28, 2009

  r129 (Preparing releasenotes for new release) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Preparing releasenotes for new release

  Preparing releasenotes for new release
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 12 (RegEx Should().Not().Match) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   const RegexOptions ro = RegexOptions.Singleline | RegexOptions.IgnoreCase; "a\nb".Should().Match(new Regex("a.b", ro)); In general you test if a string match with a custom regex.

  Status: WontFix

  const RegexOptions ro = RegexOptions.Singleline | RegexOptions.IgnoreCase; "a\nb".Should().Match(new Regex("a.b", ro)); In general you test if a string match with a custom regex.

  Status: WontFix
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 17 (NunitEx.Test on Mono) changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4
• Jul 27, 2009

  r128 (Fix NUnitEx-17) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Fix NUnitEx-17

  Fix NUnitEx-17
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 16 (Add Count assertion for lists) changed by fabiomaulo   -   Fixing issue-7 this issue was fixed too at least for count (AmountOfElements). var ints = new[] { 1, 2, 3 }; ints.Should().Have.Count.EqualTo(3); ints.Should().Not.Have.Count.EqualTo(2); ints.Should().Contain(3).And.Not.Have.Count.LessThan(2);

  Status: Done

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4

  Fixing issue-7 this issue was fixed too at least for count (AmountOfElements). var ints = new[] { 1, 2, 3 }; ints.Should().Have.Count.EqualTo(3); ints.Should().Not.Have.Count.EqualTo(2); ints.Should().Contain(3).And.Not.Have.Count.LessThan(2);

  Status: Done

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 7 (Suggestion for ICollection.Count assertion) changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4
• Jul 27, 2009

  r127 (Fix NUnitEx-7) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Fix NUnitEx-7

  Fix NUnitEx-7
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 17 (NunitEx.Test on Mono) Labels changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Labels: Priority-Low −Priority-Medium

  Labels: Priority-Low −Priority-Medium
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 15 (EnumeralbeConstraint usage without object initializers) changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4

  Status: Fixed

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.4
• Jul 27, 2009

  r126 (Fix NUnitEx-15 (using extensions instead change interfaces) ) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Fix NUnitEx-15 (using extensions instead change interfaces)

  Fix NUnitEx-15 (using extensions instead change interfaces)
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 18 (ParamName when handling exceptions is missing) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   ParaName is a property of the class ArgumentNullException (the expected exception). The instruction you are showing in the issue is part of a test that mean it is working for sure.

  Status: Invalid

  ParaName is a property of the class ArgumentNullException (the expected exception). The instruction you are showing in the issue is part of a test that mean it is working for sure.

  Status: Invalid
• Jul 27, 2009

  issue 18 (ParamName when handling exceptions is missing) reported by ola.fjelddahl   -   There is no ParamName when handling an exception even though the documentation says so. The documentation on the front page says: (new Action(() => new AClass(null))) .Should().Throw<ArgumentNullException>() .And .ValueOf.ParamName .Should().Be.EqualTo("obj"); But there is no ParamName to be found.

  There is no ParamName when handling an exception even though the documentation says so. The documentation on the front page says: (new Action(() => new AClass(null))) .Should().Throw<ArgumentNullException>() .And .ValueOf.ParamName .Should().Be.EqualTo("obj"); But there is no ParamName to be found.
• Jul 23, 2009

  issue 17 (NunitEx.Test on Mono) reported by jfromani...@gmail.com   -   There is a problem with line breaks in ExpressionTest.cs. My suggestion is to replace all \r\n for Environment.NewLine. After that there is 4 test that doesn't work, this problem is related to the way mono convert expressions to string. For example: x.All(y => (y > 1)) -in .Net is "x.All(y => (y > 1))" -in mono is "All(x, y => (y > 1))" I don't have any suggestion on that subject.

  There is a problem with line breaks in ExpressionTest.cs. My suggestion is to replace all \r\n for Environment.NewLine. After that there is 4 test that doesn't work, this problem is related to the way mono convert expressions to string. For example: x.All(y => (y > 1)) -in .Net is "x.All(y => (y > 1))" -in mono is "All(x, y => (y > 1))" I don't have any suggestion on that subject.
• Jul 22, 2009

  SyntaxOverview (NUnitEx's syntax overview) Wiki page commented on by dag...@scotalt.net   -   gRtfydtesyzzzzrizzyzzzdzzzizzzfizuzzzz

  gRtfydtesyzzzzrizzyzzzdzzzizzzfizuzzzz
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 16 (Add Count assertion for lists) commented on by jancic   -   Yes, you're right. I like the syntax .And.ValueOf.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2);

  Yes, you're right. I like the syntax .And.ValueOf.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2);
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 7 (Suggestion for ICollection.Count assertion) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   Reopening. As requested in issue-16 this syntax can be useful for constraints-chain.

  Status: Accepted

  Reopening. As requested in issue-16 this syntax can be useful for constraints-chain.

  Status: Accepted
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 16 (Add Count assertion for lists) commented on by fabiomaulo   -   Or, perhaps reopen the Issue-7

  Or, perhaps reopen the Issue-7
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 16 (Add Count assertion for lists) commented on by fabiomaulo   -   mmmm May be is better something like list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2) .And.ValueOf.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2); btw in this cases, when you change the subject of the test, would be more readable something like list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2); list.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2);

  mmmm May be is better something like list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2) .And.ValueOf.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2); btw in this cases, when you change the subject of the test, would be more readable something like list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2); list.Count.Should.Be.EqualTo(2);
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 16 (Add Count assertion for lists) reported by jancic   -   When you are in NUnit, to assert the Count of a collection you have to use always multiple lines: Assert.Contains(list, item1); Assert.Contains(list, item2); Assert.AreEqual(2, list.Count); But in NUnitEx you would be nice to use the method chain to test the list.Count as a part of the list. So, instead of doing: list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2); list.Count.Should().Be.EqualTo(2) Do: list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2) .And.Have.AmountOfElements(2); Not sure if the name AmountOfElements is a good one. I'm submitting the patch with that anyway.

  When you are in NUnit, to assert the Count of a collection you have to use always multiple lines: Assert.Contains(list, item1); Assert.Contains(list, item2); Assert.AreEqual(2, list.Count); But in NUnitEx you would be nice to use the method chain to test the list.Count as a part of the list. So, instead of doing: list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2); list.Count.Should().Be.EqualTo(2) Do: list.Should().Contain(item1) .And.Contain(item2) .And.Have.AmountOfElements(2); Not sure if the name AmountOfElements is a good one. I'm submitting the patch with that anyway.
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 15 (EnumeralbeConstraint usage without object initializers) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   good so and so..... the parameter of SameSequenceAs is a IEnumerable<T> that allow you various implementation of IEnumerable<T>. Btw I'll try it. Thanks.

  Status: Accepted

  good so and so..... the parameter of SameSequenceAs is a IEnumerable<T> that allow you various implementation of IEnumerable<T>. Btw I'll try it. Thanks.

  Status: Accepted
• Jul 22, 2009

  issue 15 (EnumeralbeConstraint usage without object initializers) reported by vansha   -   When you had need it ? When i test collection's content it is boring to type object initializers like this way: "Want to type less".Split(" ") .Should().Have.SameSequenceAs(new[] { "Want", "to", "type", "less" }); Which is the syntax you are proposing ? "Want to type less".Split(" ") .Should().Have.SameSequenceAs("Want", "to", "type", "less"); I propose to override methods for enumerables with a "params" keyword to specify variable number of arguments.

  When you had need it ? When i test collection's content it is boring to type object initializers like this way: "Want to type less".Split(" ") .Should().Have.SameSequenceAs(new[] { "Want", "to", "type", "less" }); Which is the syntax you are proposing ? "Want to type less".Split(" ") .Should().Have.SameSequenceAs("Want", "to", "type", "less"); I propose to override methods for enumerables with a "params" keyword to specify variable number of arguments.
• Jul 19, 2009

  r125 (Changed the current trunk version.) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Changed the current trunk version.

  Changed the current trunk version.
• Jul 19, 2009

  r124 (Release notes) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Release notes

  Release notes
• Jul 19, 2009

  issue 14 (Bad name FiledValue instead of FieldValue) Labels changed by fabiomaulo   -  

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.3

  Labels: Milestone-Release1.0.3
• Jul 18, 2009

  SyntaxOverview (NUnitEx's syntax overview) Wiki page edited by fabiomaulo
• Jul 15, 2009

  SyntaxOverview (NUnitEx's syntax overview) Wiki page edited by fabiomaulo
• Jul 15, 2009

  issue 14 (Bad name FiledValue instead of FieldValue) Status changed by fabiomaulo   -   Thanks. That is the problem of the intellisense... you may have a TYPO in a method name and never find it.

  Status: Fixed

  Thanks. That is the problem of the intellisense... you may have a TYPO in a method name and never find it.

  Status: Fixed
• Jul 15, 2009

  r121 (Fix NUnitEx-14 Breaking change : The TYPO of the method name...) committed by fabiomaulo   -   Fix NUnitEx-14 Breaking change : The TYPO of the method name was fixed.

  Fix NUnitEx-14 Breaking change : The TYPO of the method name was fixed.