AssemblyVersion needed

[Rechenelf]

[Issue now tracked at https://github.com/nunit/nunit-framework/issues/46]

A nice feature would be a Version as a Attribute. When the assembly version is at least the value, the test is active. If the assembly version is to low, the test will be ignored.
The version could be the version of the assembly which contains the test or delivered by a public static class from a special property (as it is in testcasesource).

Testcase and Testfixture and so on must also have this feature.

[Charlie Poole (charlie.poole)]

I'm failing to see the use case. Are you intending to test multiple versions
of the same system with one set of tests?

Charlie

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Rechenelf <email address hidden> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> A nice feature would be a Version as a Attribute. When the assembly version is at least the value, the test is active. If the assembly version is to low, the test will be ignored.
> The version could be the version of the assembly which contains the test or delivered by a public static class from a special property (as it is in testcasesource).
>
> Testcase and Testfixture and so on must also have this feature.
>
> ** Affects: nunitv2
>     Importance: Undecided
>         Status: New
>
>
> ** Tags: attribute feature version
>
> --
> AssemblyVersion needed
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628884
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
> Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2.
>
> Status in NUnit V2 Test Framework: New
>
> Bug description:
> A nice feature would be a Version as a Attribute. When the assembly version is at least the value, the test is active. If the assembly version is to low, the test will be ignored.
> The version could be the version of the assembly which contains the test or delivered by a public static class from a special property (as it is in testcasesource).
>
> Testcase and Testfixture and so on must also have this feature.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~nunit-core
> Post to     : <email address hidden>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~nunit-core
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

[Rechenelf (matklaus)]

This could be one use case.
My case is an other one. The workflow is the following: A feature is decided and the a specification is made. After that a developer makes the interfaces with an empty implementation. When this is ready, a tester implement the NUnit-Tests which can not work currently. Some weeks later, a developer implements the interfaces and at the end of the sprint (scrum) the version of the assembly increases which automatically (when the attribute is available) let the tests not to be ignored furthermore.
The current practice is, that someone must remove the ignore attribute and sometimes nobody knows, what to do with a test (vacation, illness, ....).

[Charlie Poole (charlie.poole)]

This seems to be a very special case, in which you know in advance the
future version of the assembly
in which a fixture should be implemented. Would specifying the date
also server your purpose?

I may put this to the nunit-discuss list for discussion.

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Rechenelf <email address hidden> wrote:
> This could be one use case.
> My case is an other one. The workflow is the following: A feature is decided and the a specification is made. After that a developer makes the interfaces with an empty implementation. When this is ready, a tester implement the NUnit-Tests which can not work currently. Some weeks later, a developer implements the interfaces and at the end of the sprint (scrum) the version of the assembly increases which automatically (when the attribute is available) let the tests not to be ignored furthermore.
> The current practice is, that someone must remove the ignore attribute and sometimes nobody knows, what to do with a test (vacation, illness, ....).
>
> --
> AssemblyVersion needed
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628884
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
> Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2.
>

[Rechenelf (matklaus)]

In your old testunit framework we have Ignore with date and use it for this case. But this is not quit good. Sure is, in which version it will be in, but the date is not really fix (first quarter of 2011). So the work for the person, who administer the nunit-test has less work.

[Charlie Poole (charlie.poole)]

I see...

Some shops have fixed dates but others do not.

Fair enough. :-)

Charlie

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Rechenelf <email address hidden> wrote:
> In your old testunit framework we have Ignore with date and use it for
> this case. But this is not quit good. Sure is, in which version it will
> be in, but the date is not really fix (first quarter of 2011). So the
> work for the person, who administer the nunit-test has less work.
>
> --
> AssemblyVersion needed
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628884
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
> Developers, which is subscribed to NUnit V2.
>

[Charlie Poole (charlie.poole)]

We'll consider this in 3.0