4 ms·
They really needed to do this. The ASPX view engine just felt like they took existing code and shoved it in to the MVC framework. A fresh start was needed, an
by nck4222 16y ago
They really needed to do this. The ASPX view engine just felt like they took existing code and shoved it in to the MVC framework.
A fresh start was needed, and it looks great.
It'll be interesting to see how they incorporate unit testing.
- StrawberryFrog 16y agoViews are notoriously hard to test - a lot of that comes down to "does it look right", which is not automatable. The MVC pattern is already a lot more unit-testable than most, since the view is separated from the rest, and data (viewModel) and processing (controller) can be tested without the view.
- nck4222 16y agoI probably should have said that as a reply to the Scott Gu article. From that article: "Unit Testable: The new view engine implementation will support the ability to unit test views (without requiring a controller or web-server, and can be hosted in any unit test project – no special app-domain required)." I was wondering how that would work, since as you said, they're notoriously hard to test.
- hackinthebochs 16y agoI think the main point with testable views is that the default asp.net view engine is completely coupled to the asp.net runtime. It was impossible to instantiate a view engine instance and render a view inside the test framework without creating a special app-domain in which to host the test. I had to wrestle with this just last week, it was a major pain in the ass to work around this limitation.