« Ridiculous Legalese | Main | The CodePlex Team and the patterns & practices Summit »

September 20, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joshua Flanagan

I think a console runner is sufficient. Don't waste resources on a GUI runner - just make sure to give Jamie Cansdale any help he needs adding TestDriven.NET support.

Brad Wilson

Joshua, we're already shipping support for TD.NET :)


Could you post some code snippets of tests. For example, one with the rollback you mentioned. Also, is there a way to do parameterized tests ala MbUnit's RowTest?

I like the reduction of attributes. It's a great idea.

Chris R. Chapman

Seriously good work! Glad to see some rational, experience-driven advances made in the TDD sphere with this release.


Troy DeMonbreun

No SetUp or TearDown is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMHO, FWIW, YMMV. My point being that it will be hard to supplant NUnit without it. Maybe some optional/non-default/buried approach (not sure what that would look like, OTTOMH) would encourage users to go to xUnit.net.


I love seeing new, fresh products that look to improve on what I'm already using. However, from just reading this page I'm not interested in your application. It seems like every bullet point is either about a feature you don't support or about a feature that requires extra coding from me to get working. I'm sure your product offers something that nunit does not, otherwise you wouldn't have written it. But I don't see much on this page that explains what those advantages are. Please take this as helpful feedback. I'm really not trying to be a jerk here. I just think you need to do a better job of selling your application here. Good luck!

Brad Wilson

Troy, you can use constructor/IDisposable.Dispose() as a direct replacement for SetUp and TearDown.

Haacked, in xunit.extensions is a new test attribute called [Theory], which allows data driven tests. We need to publish some samples of it, but for now you can see examples within the unit/acceptance tests in Tests.xunit.extensions.


This all sounds great... As a long time user of NUnit (and when I was coding Java last 2-3years back, JUnit), its great to see the framework 'evolve'...

Whilst I share some of the concerns of loosing [SetUp] and [TearDown], Im fairly confident that once i see example code of the newer syntax, it'll all be clear...

I do tho, have one suggestion.

The initial version will ship with just a console-runner, which is fair enough. But how about in the next version, a .NET plugin which can be launched from a button click. The button click will compile the test code and the targetted .dll/.dll's and present a 'results window' or even present the results in the workspace. Will just save developers some slight hassle of having to jump back and forth between windows; we can just stay in the .NET IDE...

Just my 2cents.

Keith Reichert

Would adding SetUp and TearDown properties to the Test attribute be beneficial? You could have tests in a fixture that don't need to have SetUp and TearDown methods. There could also be sets of tests that run completely different Setup and TearDown processes in the same fixture. Not to mention that you could look at any test and see what sort of SetUp and TearDown methods are required.


This sounds great. The only thing that is kind of annoying is the name. I've always heard "xUnit" used to describe any of the unit testing frameworks. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUnit

Again, it really sounds great. Just nitpicking on the name.

The comments to this entry are closed.