hahahha, I think the documentation part painful too but why you say that in english is the the toughest part?
On Sep 30, 10:06 am, Yann Trevin <[email protected]> wrote: > Some documentation about Assert.HasAttribute is now available in the > wiki.http://gallio.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mbunit:assertions:attribute > > <rant> > Documenting stuff in English is always the toughest part :) > </rant> > > 2010/9/28 Yann Trevin <[email protected]> > > > > > You are welcome, Rafael > > > We are always looking for contributors. There are > > tons<http://gallio.org/wiki/doku.php?id=gallio:ideas>of > > stuff <http://gallio.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mbunit:ideas> to > > implement<http://code.google.com/p/mb-unit/issues/list?can=2&q=milestone%3D3.3+...> > > or > > to > > improve<http://code.google.com/p/mb-unit/issues/list?can=2&q=milestone%3D3.3+...>. > > Feel > > free to submit patches if you want. > > > Regards, > > Yann. > > > 2010/9/28 Rafael <[email protected]> > > > Awesome! > > >> I was starting to take a loot on the framework code and how to > >> contribute but you already have this! > >> As soon I got some time I'm going to explore the this! > > >> Thanks, > >> Rafael > > >> On Sep 27, 4:20 pm, Yann Trevin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi Raphael, > > >> > It's documented nowhere yet, but *Assert.HasAttribute* is available in > >> > v3.3.13 <http://ccnet.gallio.org/Distributables/> (and later). > > >> > It might be used like this: > > >> > [TestFixture] > >> > [TestsOn(typeof(RegisterModel))] > > >> > public class RegisterModelTest > >> > { > >> > [Test] > >> > public void Type_should_have_PropertiesMustMatchAttribute() > > >> > { > >> > var attribute = > > >> Assert.HasAttribute<PropertiesMustMatchAttribute>(typeof(RegisterModel)); > > >> > Assert.AreEqual("Password", attribute.OriginalProperty); > >> > Assert.AreEqual("ConfirmPassword", > >> attribute.ConfirmProperty); > > >> > Assert.AreEqual("The password and confirmation password do > >> > not match.", attribute.ErrorMessage); > >> > } > > >> > [Test] > > >> > public void UserName_property_should_have_RequiredAttribute() > >> > { > >> > var member = typeof(RegisterModel).GetProperty("UserName"); > > >> > Assert.HasAttribute<RequiredAttribute>(member); > >> > } > > >> > [Test] > >> > public void UserName_property_should_have_DisplayNameAttribute() > > >> > { > >> > var member = typeof(RegisterModel).GetProperty("UserName"); > > >> > var attribute = > >> Assert.HasAttribute<DisplayNameAttribute>(member); > >> > Assert.AreEqual("User name", attribute.DisplayName); > > >> > } > >> > } > > >> > Some remarks: > > >> > - Instead of targeting the object with *reflection*, you may want to > >> use > >> > the MbUnit Mirror API < > >>http://gallio.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mbunit:mirror>, > >> > which makes easier to get private members. > > >> > var member = Mirror.ForType(typeof(RegisterModel))["UserName"]; > > >> > - In case several instances of the attribute are expected or > >> considered, > >> > it's better to use *Assert.Attributes* instead. It has an optional > >> > *expectedCount > >> > *argument and it returns an array of attributes. > >> > - Non-generic overloads are provided which should be interesting for > >> > data-driven tests. > > >> > [Test] > >> > [Column(typeof(RequiredAttribute), typeof(DataTypeAttribute), typeof( > >> > DisplayNameAttribute))] > >> > public void Property_should_have_attributes(Type expectedAttributeType) > >> > { > > >> > var member = typeof(RegisterModel).GetProperty("Email"); > > >> > Assert.HasAttribute(expectedAttributeType, member); > >> > } > > >> > - I still consider to implement a few extra overloads which take an > >> > expression to target a property. But it's not implemented yet. > > >> > Regards, > >> > Yann. > > >> > 2010/9/13 Yann Trevin <[email protected]> > > >> > > For reference:http://code.google.com/p/mb-unit/issues/detail?id=727 > > >> > > 2010/9/13 Yann Trevin <[email protected]> > > >> > > You mean by using an expression like in FluentNHibernate? > >> > >> Something like this? > > >> > >> class Foo > >> > >> { > >> > >> [Obsolete("Old stuff")] > >> > >> int MyObsoleteProperty > >> > >> { > >> > >> get; set; > >> > >> } > >> > >> } > > >> > >> var o = new Foo(); > >> > >> var attribute = Assert.HasAttribute<ObsoleteAttribute>(o => > >> > >> o.MyObsoleteProperty); > >> > >> Assert.AreEqual("Old Stuff", attribute.Message); > > >> > >> The assertion could then have the following main signatures: > > >> > >> - Attribute Assert.HasAttribute(Type expectedAttributeType, > >> > >> Expression<Func<object, object>> expression) > >> > >> - TAttribute > >> Assert.HasAttribute<TAttribute>(Expression<Func<object, > >> > >> object>> expression) > > >> > >> And similarly to Assert.Throws, the assertion returns the instance of > >> the > >> > >> actual attribute, so it's easy to make further assertions on it. > > >> > >> What do you think? > > >> > >> 2010/9/13 Rafael <[email protected]> > > >> > >> Hi Yann, > > >> > >>> I think that .Web extension will be cool! > > >> > >>> Well the attributes can be used for anything not just for the data > >> > >>> validation on MVC, > >> > >>> so I think it's possible to have some general asserts around that > >> > >>> outside the new extension. > > >> > >>> For me I did two things, the first was to check if there is an > >> > >>> attribute on a property, > >> > >>> then I thought in the property that will have attributes like Range > >> > >>> for example, > >> > >>> because don't make sense just check if it exists or not > >> > >>> but it's necessary check the minimum and maximum. > > >> > >>> The first idea is just like you said, Assert.HasAttribute will be > >> > >>> enough > >> > >>> and the second I couldn't figure out a nice name but it's something > >> > >>> that > >> > >>> you'll have basically the types (Model and *Attribute), property > >> name > >> > >>> to check and > >> > >>> the last parameter could be a "Func" that you can check the > >> properties > >> > >>> from the > >> > >>> Attribute. > > >> > >>> Well, that was my idea, if you didn't understand anything I can > >> > >>> clarify, or if didn't like the idea I'll understand too. > > >> > >>> Thanks, > >> > >>> Rafael > > >> > >>> On 13 set, 03:29, Yann Trevin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > Hi Rafael, > > >> > >>> > There is no built-in assertion to do that yet :( > > >> > >>> > In fact, an extension of MbUnit dedicated to web apps is > >> > >>> > foreseen<http://gallio.org/wiki/doku.php?id=mbunit:ideas> > >> > >>> > (MbUnit.Framework.Web) > >> > >>> > That extension would ideally contain some useful assertions and > >> helper > >> > >>> > features for technologies such as ASP.NET MVC. > >> > >>> > But I don't know precisely what would be worth to add in that > >> > >>> extension... > > >> > >>> > Otherwise if your requirements are more general, we could easily > >> create > >> > >>> a > >> > >>> > couple of assertions to work with attributes (e.g. > >> Assert.HasAttribute > >> > >>> or > >> > >>> > something) > > >> > >>> > What sort of assertions would you need? > > >> > >>> > Yann. > > >> > >>> > 2010/9/10 Rafael <[email protected]> > > >> > >>> > > Hi folks, > > >> > >>> > > I was trying out the MbUnit Frameworks these days in an > >> > >>> > > ASP.NETMVC > >> > >>> 2 > >> > >>> > > application and I wondering how to make an unit test for my > >> models, > >> > >>> > > that uses data annotations for the validation. > > >> > >>> > > I saw that there's isn't an assertion to check if some property > >> is > >> > >>> > > "Required" for example. And I end up doing by the common way, > >> but I > >> > >>> > > was wondering if these things can be added on the framework (I'm > >> not > >> > >>> > > asking for nothing, just a suggestion) because we need to write > >> some > >> > >>> > > considerable amount of code to check the attribute from a > >> property > >> > >>> > > (even if its possible to create a separated method, like a > >> helper to > >> > >>> > > do that). > > >> > >>> > > Well, if I the framework provides something to check this kind > >> of > >> > >>> > > thing, please show me, otherwise the suggestion is here! > > >> > >>> > > Thanks! > > >> > >>> > > -- > >> > >>> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > >> Google > >> > >>> Groups > >> > >>> > > "MbUnit.User" group. > >> > >>> > > To post to this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> > >>> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > >>> > > [email protected]<mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou > >> > >>> > > ps.com> > >> <mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou ps.com> > >> > >>> <mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou ps.com> > >> > >>> > > . > >> > >>> > > For more options, visit this group at > >> > >>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en. > > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups > >> > >>> "MbUnit.User" group. > >> > >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > >>> [email protected]<mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou > >> > >>> ps.com> > >> <mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou ps.com> > >> > >>> . > >> > >>> For more options, visit this group at > >> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en. > > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "MbUnit.User" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]<mbunituser%2bunsubscr...@googlegrou > >> ps.com> > >> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MbUnit.User" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en.
