You can create an issue here <http://code.google.com/p/mb-unit/issues/list>. It might be worth creating two, one for the InnerException and one for making TestAttribute more easily extensible.
On 5 October 2010 10:01, mark Kharitonov <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I understand that. However, there is quite a bit of logic regarding > the exception logging. Of course, I can copy/paste it, but it is internal > stuff which you may change at will. > If you think, that the ability to assert against an inner exception is > legitimate and useful (I think it is), then may be it can be submitted as a > feature request? If you agree, please tell me how to submit it and I will > gladly do so. > > P.S. > I feel a need to praise you folks.I think all of you guys are doing a > terrific job. Gallio/MbUnit rules. > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Graham Hay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To be honest, it looks worse than it is. The whole method is dedicated to >> one purpose, executing a test and catching an exception if required, which >> is the behaviour you're looking to modify. We could probably break it up >> into a couple of overridable methods, but I'm loath to undo all Jeff's good >> work in reducing the stack depth. >> >> On 2 October 2010 20:09, Mark Kharitonov <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yep, the more I look at the Execute method the less I want to override >>> it. Too much internal logic to copy/paste. >>> >>> On Oct 2, 9:03 pm, Mark Kharitonov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Yes, you are right. Execute is the right place, however, this function >>> > is not trivial. At least all that code around the failure logging plus >>> > the various checks. I wish I could make a more simple override. >>> > >>> > On Oct 2, 4:59 pm, Graham Hay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > You just need to override Execute, and replace the existing >>> implementation >>> > > (which handles ExpectedExceptions) with your own. It might be worth >>> us >>> > > pulling the exception handling code out into another hook method, to >>> make >>> > > this easier in future. >>> > >>> > > On 2 October 2010 15:35, Mark Kharitonov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > > We already subclass the TestAttribute class (amongst others). The >>> most >>> > > > suitable place is the Consume override, but it seems complex. I >>> hope >>> > > > there is a better solution. >>> > >>> > > > On Oct 2, 3:34 pm, Graham Hay <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > I thought you could assert the InnerException as well, but that >>> doesn't >>> > > > > appear to have survived the transition from MbUnit >>> > > > > v2< >>> > > > >>> http://www.gallio.org/api-v2/html/P_MbUnit_Framework_ExpectedExceptio.. >>> .>. >>> > > > > The easiest thing to do is probably to subclass/replace the >>> TestAttribute >>> > > > > with a custom version that satisfies your requirements, either by >>> > > > stripping >>> > > > > the outer exception or adding inner exception metadata to check. >>> > >>> > > > > On 2 October 2010 12:33, Mark Kharitonov < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > >>> > > > > > Dear sirs. >>> > > > > > We have a situation, where tests throw exceptions wrapped in a >>> general >>> > > > > > purpose exception. So that one has to specify this general >>> purpose >>> > > > > > exception in the [ExpectedException] attribute, rather than >>> actual >>> > > > > > business exception. >>> > >>> > > > > > Only there is another complication. We have build a framework, >>> where >>> > > > > > individual tests are combined in scenarios using XML files. The >>> same >>> > > > > > test may appear several times in one scenario and the test >>> input >>> > > > > > specifies whether the test is expected to fail or not. So, >>> there is >>> > > > > > neither hard coded [ExpectedException] attribute nor >>> Assert.Throws >>> > > > > > statements in the code. (We dynamically add the expected >>> exception >>> > > > > > metadata when needed). >>> > >>> > > > > > Anyway, the person creating the scenario (i.e. writing the XML >>> file) >>> > > > > > now has to indicate that the particular test is expected to >>> fail with >>> > > > > > some artificial exception (like ShunraDataPortalException) >>> instead of >>> > > > > > a specific business exception (like >>> LastChangedMismatchException). >>> > >>> > > > > > I was wondering if any of the following possible: >>> > > > > > - Automatically and transparently wrap each test in a wrapper >>> with >>> > > > > > the same signature, that would try-execute-catch-strip-throw. >>> > > > > > - Somehow modify the exception checking, to extract the actual >>> > > > > > business exception before asserting the expected exception. >>> > >>> > > > > > 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%[email protected]> >>> <mbunituser%[email protected]<mbunituser%[email protected]> >>> > >>> > > > <mbunituser%[email protected]<mbunituser%[email protected]> >>> <mbunituser%[email protected]<mbunituser%[email protected]> >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > . >>> > > > > > 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%[email protected]> >>> <mbunituser%[email protected]<mbunituser%[email protected]> >>> > >>> > > > . >>> > > > 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%[email protected]> >>> . >>> 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%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/mbunituser?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Be well and prosper. > ============================== > "There are two kinds of people.Those whose guns are loaded and those who > dig." > ("The good, the bad and the ugly") > So let us drink for our guns always be loaded. > > -- > 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%[email protected]> > . > 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.
