You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 7, 2019. It is now read-only.
#The following scenario name demonstrates the problem with long names Scenario: This is an example of a case that will fail when the amount of characters in the scenario names goes beyond 80 characters
When using the original specflow exe to create cs files this results in the following glue code
[Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TestMethodAttribute()]
[Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.DescriptionAttribute("This is an example of a case that will fail when the amount of characters in the " +
"scenario names goes beyond 80 characters")]
The FixMsTest function uses a regex to remove the Description attribute which results in the following broken glue code
A simple fix is to extend the regex to span multiple lines and remove the Description correctly. Although I don't know why the description has to be removed since it appears to compile just fine.
Anyway I added a pull request to resolve this. # #55
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm not using MSTest so I rely on the community to tidy these things up. If you don't think the Description needs to be removed (it seems wrong to me as well) then feel free to patch it with another PR 😄
#The following scenario name demonstrates the problem with long names
Scenario: This is an example of a case that will fail when the amount of characters in the scenario names goes beyond 80 characters
When using the original specflow exe to create cs files this results in the following glue code
The FixMsTest function uses a regex to remove the Description attribute which results in the following broken glue code
A simple fix is to extend the regex to span multiple lines and remove the Description correctly. Although I don't know why the description has to be removed since it appears to compile just fine.
Anyway I added a pull request to resolve this. # #55
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: