3 ms·
NUnit isn't much better. You'd think that they would have good test coverage and therefore high confidence to make changes, especially to fix actual bugs, but I
by HereBeBeasties 4y ago
NUnit isn't much better. You'd think that they would have good test coverage and therefore high confidence to make changes, especially to fix actual bugs, but I gave up trying to get patches in because the core devs seem so afraid of breaking anything, even when it's an obviously-isolated private, hidden bug fix or performance improvement.
"We can't land this tiny fix because we have a release planned within three months" sort of thing.
- torginus 4y agoTbh, one of the differences between xUnit and nUnit, is the way generated test cases work, like specifying test cases in an xml file. nUnit has the TestCaseSource attribute for this, while xUnit has the Fact attribute. One of the key differences, is there are no test cases generated, nUnit tests just wont run, while xUnit will throw. Since it's completely legal and sensible for a certain kind of test to have no entries in an xml, we needed to hack around this quirk. When I (and countless others) have mentioned this on the xunit github, the author berated us that how dare we request this. So nUnit might be buggy, but xUnit is fundamentally unfixable.
- zdragnar 4y agoHow ironic, a unit test framework is so fragile and poorly covered by tests they are not able to determine if a change would cause any regressions.