Using Test and TestCaseSource attributes together

[ChrisMaddock]

On this page, both the Test and TestCaseSource attributes are specified. I normally only specify TestCaseSource on it's own, as it's done on this page.

Is one way considered 'better practice' than the other, or is the test attribute simply redundant in the first case? Or was it historically required? I checked it out locally and it doesn't appear to make any difference to what's actually run - but seeing the additional attribute at first did make me want to check my tests were actually running!

[CharliePoole]

It's a matter of style. When TestCaseSource was first introduce, only methods marked with either Test or TestCase were treated as tests, so the extra Test attribute was required. Nowadays, recognize it without Test.

The tests of NUnit itself are not standardized, but use a mix of the styles. This is for a very good reason: it's possible that one style or the other may produce a bug some day.

It's also possible that some third-party runners will only recognize tests with the Test attribute, so we try to keep it working when used only as a marker and not to generate an extra test case.

Probably, the docs for TestCaseSource should indicate that the attribute is sufficient by itself to mark a test. We do that for TestCase already.

[ChrisMaddock]

Great - thanks for this Charlie. I can summarise and add to the page - I think the explanation would help avoid confusion.

[CharliePoole]

Go for it!

[ChrisMaddock]

Whoops, this slipped my mind. @CharliePoole - have added a note to TestCaseSource, please feel free to check I haven't twisted your words!

https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/TestCaseSource-Attribute

[CharliePoole]

@ChrisMaddock You represented my words real well. However, I intended the historical perspective for you, not for the docs.

In our old NUnit docs, we always described the history of everything, even down to what version of NUnit a feature was introduced in. With 3.0, I felt we should break with that and just tell people how things now work. I think that's what they want to know. I will post a question about this for all of us to ponder however.

For TestCaseSource, I just thought you needed something like the first sentence in the TestCase attribute docs, talking about the "dual purpose" of the attribute. I don't think we need the note.

[ChrisMaddock]

@CharliePoole Ah, ok. I've switched it for something more succinct, as in TestCaseAttribute.

[CharliePoole]

@ChrisMaddock Looks good, thanks.