Issue 243 - nunit version #273
Conversation
|
I will look at pulling this in as soon as I am sure that I did not mess up the 0.8.7 release. Thank you so much for the work on this, bear with me for a bit longer. |
|
Lovely, @BiggerNoise. Thanks. I wouldn't want to mess up the 0.8.7 release - it's been in the making for years :) The build failed because I had used C# 6 features. Any reason we want to stay on C# 5? We can handle this in a separate issue, anyway. |
|
One thing, though. I might have broken some bdd doc generation? I don't know how to test it. But I don't think it has been working for ages, ref. #122. |
|
Bdddoc was built to parse xml output from mbunit - so it would be expected to be broken when you switch out the testing framework (and that is okay). |
The Nuget version bundled in the repo had incompatibilities with current nuget.org packages (the newest ones wouldn't install). Also deleted Nuget in lib/Nuget, as it isn't used.
Using Moq and Should for assertions, to be closer to what Chocolatey does. Compare this with Pull request chucknorris#271, which uses xUnit, NSubstitute and FluentAssertions
erikbra
force-pushed
the
issue-243-nunit
branch
from
365ad21
to
64a96de
Compare
As requested in Pull Request #271 , I have converted the tests to NUnit instead of xUnit. I have used TinySpec, as in Chocolatey tests, and tried to change as little as possible. Goal was to easily run tests in a modern development environment (Visual Studio), without having to use a command-line test runner.
Could you please take a look at this pull, @ferventcoder , and see if you like this one better than #271?