11/30/2010 6:34:46 AM
Ben McClure
Posts: 3
|
I really, really like T#'s syntax, and since it was the first .NET testing framework I really dug into, looking at samples of the other frameworks' code makes them look hideous by comparison.
However, I've been wanting to start using code coverage. I would really like to use DotCover from JetBrains, and while it supports a large number of testing frameworks, it does not seem to support T#. In fact, neither NCover nor any other code coverage tool I could find include support for it.
I see there is an extension for NUnit, but from what I can gather (from the very sparse documentation that exists about it), it is meant to run NUnit tests from within the T# framework.
Is there any possibility of getting my Visual T# tests working with a tool like DotCover?
--
Ben McClure
|
|
|
0
• permalink
|
11/30/2010 8:40:20 AM
Ludovic Dubois
Administrator
Posts: 159
|
Hi.
Thanks for your comment. Our goal was: one intent to test = one line of code. That's all. And, effectively, it is far more easier to write and read such code.
For DotCover, we do not have done anything yet. But, has we love JetBrains tools too, we will see what we can do. We are working on mocks right now and we do not know what amount of work is needed to support DotCover.
What is the most important feature for you? Mocks or DotCovers? (As few people participate in this forum, we will prioritize users features). We should be able to investigate on January for DotCovers, perhaps before.
|
|
|
0
• permalink
|
11/30/2010 1:30:02 PM
Ben McClure
Posts: 3
|
Good question! Both features seem like they would be very valuable in their own way.
For my own purposes, I would rather have code coverage support, simply because I haven't hit any hurdles that I couldn't cross without using true mocks.
Code coverage, while maybe less tangible in some ways than mock objects, is something that physically can't be achieved with another technique. You can either analyze code coverage, or you can't. Mocks, on the other hand, I have usually (not always) been able to find a decent way around. Creating special "mock" implementations of most classes manually is not out of the question, but could take a lot more work than making use of mocks in the language itself.
However those are just my initial thoughts, and to be honest I have pretty limited exposure to testing so far (I unit test in PHP all the time, but it's new for me in .NET), so there may be factors I'm not thinking about as well.
Anyway, thanks for getting back to me so quick, and I look forward to both features hopefully making it into TSharp in the future 
--
Ben McClure
|
|
|
0
• permalink
|