3 ms·
Terrible. It's just a list. No examples, no feature comparison, no analysis. After reading this article, did you know that FakeItEasy is very slow, so is unsui
by radicalbyte 10y ago
Terrible. It's just a list. No examples, no feature comparison, no analysis.
After reading this article, did you know that FakeItEasy is very slow, so is unsuitable for fuzz testing? Or that NSubstitute can't mock statics, but Microsoft Moles (absent from this list) can?
I do, because I had a developer in my team do that investigation before we decided to standardise our unit testing stack.
- rjblackman 10y agowhat did you end up going with and why?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- radicalbyte 10y agoNSubstitute, the team found it easy to use (readable) and it is extremely fast. I can't review the decision yet because we were been forced to cut our investment in unit testing, instead focusing on Selenium tests (sigh, "management" should know better).
- SuddsMcDuff 10y agoAgreed, it sounds like this guys research stopped at reading the github pages of those tools. WRT FakeItEasy - we also found that it's not thread safe. Using it with XUnit (XBehave) we had to explicitly tell Xunit to run tests sequentially. Notable in absence in addition to Moles is Machine.Fakes.
- moogly 10y agoFakeItEasy v2.0 just came out, and it boasts thread safety as the big new feature. I haven't evaluated it yet (we were also bitten by the lack of thread safety in v1.x) so I can't validate the claims.
- talles 10y agoI didn't know about Microsoft Moles. Is it any good?