Comments on: Explaining MbUnit GUI tree. http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/ Never stop learning. Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:34:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Mona http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-678 Mona Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:52:01 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-678 I kind of agree and I am looking for option as BVT, Smoke, Acceptance test etc. currently I have workaround as [FixtureCategory("BVT")]so on UI, it shows as "BVT". Also, I am looking for some way to categorize individual test cases in a class. My current automation suit may not be best designed so I am exploring all options. I kind of agree and I am looking for option as BVT, Smoke, Acceptance test etc. currently I have workaround as [FixtureCategory("BVT")]so on UI, it shows as “BVT”.

Also, I am looking for some way to categorize individual test cases in a class. My current automation suit may not be best designed so I am exploring all options.

]]> By: Lee Englestone http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-675 Lee Englestone Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:34:38 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-675 This is fantastic. Thanks! -- Lee This is fantastic. Thanks!

– Lee

]]> By: vkreynin http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-337 vkreynin Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:12:14 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-337 PLS, I just tried syntax below and it worked. <strong><TestFixture(), TestsOn(GetType(String))></strong> _ Public Class Class1   <Test()> _   Public Sub Test()   End Sub End Class PLS, I just tried syntax below and it worked.

<TestFixture(), TestsOn(GetType(String))> _
Public Class Class1

  <Test()> _
  Public Sub Test()

  End Sub
End Class

]]> By: PLS http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-336 PLS Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:21:30 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-336 vkreymin, your last response was incomplete. I used but kept getting a syntax error. Any ideas? Thanks. vkreymin, your last response was incomplete. I used
but kept getting a
syntax error. Any ideas? Thanks.

]]> By: vkreynin http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-333 vkreynin Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:19:33 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-333 I believe that VB.Net syntax will be . I believe that VB.Net syntax will be .

]]> By: PLS http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-332 PLS Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:23:56 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-332 What would be the visual basic version of [TestsOn(typeOf(Employee))]? doesn't work. What would be the visual basic version of [TestsOn(typeOf(Employee))]?

doesn’t work.

]]> By: Jeff Brown http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-190 Jeff Brown Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:22:19 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-190 Of course as you know the metadata story in MbUnit Gallio is much more powerful. Likewise we'll probably opt for some other GUI filtering mechanism because the tree has proven too confusing and hard to use (trust me, you're not the only one). I've never found TestImportance useful myself but for system testing I'd be very keen to have a Suite attribute (smoke tests, functional tests, post-deployment tests, stress tests, ...). Likewise I'm looking forward to slicing and dicing based on Feature and Product metadata. The whole idea with Gallio metadata is to allow users of the framework to define their own conventions appropriately for their needs. Of course as you know the metadata story in MbUnit Gallio is much more powerful. Likewise we’ll probably opt for some other GUI filtering mechanism because the tree has proven too confusing and hard to use (trust me, you’re not the only one).

I’ve never found TestImportance useful myself but for system testing I’d be very keen to have a Suite attribute (smoke tests, functional tests, post-deployment tests, stress tests, …). Likewise I’m looking forward to slicing and dicing based on Feature and Product metadata.

The whole idea with Gallio metadata is to allow users of the framework to define their own conventions appropriately for their needs.

]]> By: vkreynin http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-163 vkreynin Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:17:40 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-163 Peli, what would you use 'Suite' for? Peli, what would you use ‘Suite’ for?

]]> By: Peli http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-162 Peli Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:07:16 +0000 http://vkreynin.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/explaining-mbunit-gui-tree/#comment-162 Ooops, I might have gone overboard when I designed the UI :) Importance should probably be renamed 'Suite' and structure in 'Build, Checkin, TheRest'... Ooops, I might have gone overboard when I designed the UI :)
Importance should probably be renamed ‘Suite’ and structure in ‘Build, Checkin, TheRest’…

]]>