Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [fitnesse] dot net fitnesse

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Welsh
    David: First of all, thanks for asking. :-) Based on what I know so far, the design flexibility sounds useful. It does not sound to me like Needless
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 31, 2004
      David:

      First of all, thanks for asking. :-)

      Based on what I know so far, the design flexibility sounds useful. It does not sound to me like Needless Complexity, but I don't know the code, only its use. I do know that as a .Net Fitnesse user I have missed some of the features available in the Java version, and some of them can be provided by that design you sketched. And I use the .Net features that are there a fair amount. So I care a lot, for example, that my C# fixture code can pass real objects back and forth, and as long as I am doing things like overriding ToString() and Equals(), and implementing Parse(), the right things happen. This means that I can avoid lots of ugly data formatting logic in my fixture code. As the .Net version adds little niceties like that, I appreciate them.

      I can easily imagine that users will dream up new and genuinely useful kinds of data representations in table cells. Representations that reveal table intent better and better. It might be nice, for example, to have some symbol representing a "blank cell" expected value that results in the cell turning green if an empty string gets returned. For table formatting purposes alone, that would be nice.

      So I can imagine that TypeAdapters will need extending. My vote: go with the new design; the additional extensibility sounds warranted.

      But as I said, I haven't yet extended Fixture...

      --Patrick


      At 02:27 PM 8/31/2004, you wrote:
      <snip>
      The downside is that there are a bunch of new classes and more complex framework.
       
      So my questions to you are:
       
      -
                do you care?
      -
                If you do, do you like these ideas or hate them
      -
                If you like them or hate them, please tell me why
       
      Thanks in advance for your feedback.
       
      David Chelimsky
      Object Mentor, Inc.
      www.objectmentor.com

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT


      Yahoo! Groups Links


      ------

      Patrick Wilson-Welsh
      902 681 1640 (office)
      902 681 1641 (fax)
    • David Chelimsky
      Thanks for your reply Patrick. Funny you should bring up blank , as that is already implemented (not released) along with null and error keywords (so now
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 1, 2004

        Thanks for your reply Patrick. Funny you should bring up “blank”, as that is already implemented (not released) along with “null” and “error” keywords (so now you can test that errors are thrown when you want them, but the cell still turns green).

         

        FYI – you can always checkout source from sourceforge. It’s pretty much in flux right now (everything works but implementation is inconsistent), but you can peruse it to get an idea of where it’s going.

         

        David

         


        From: Patrick Welsh [mailto:patrick@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:29 PM
        To: fitnesse@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [fitnesse] dot net fitnesse

         

        David:

        First of all, thanks for asking. :-)

        Based on what I know so far, the design flexibility sounds useful. It does not sound to me like Needless Complexity, but I don't know the code, only its use. I do know that as a .Net Fitnesse user I have missed some of the features available in the Java version, and some of them can be provided by that design you sketched. And I use the .Net features that are there a fair amount. So I care a lot, for example, that my C# fixture code can pass real objects back and forth, and as long as I am doing things like overriding ToString() and Equals(), and implementing Parse(), the right things happen. This means that I can avoid lots of ugly data formatting logic in my fixture code. As the .Net version adds little niceties like that, I appreciate them.

        I can easily imagine that users will dream up new and genuinely useful kinds of data representations in table cells. Representations that reveal table intent better and better. It might be nice, for example, to have some symbol representing a "blank cell" expected value that results in the cell turning green if an empty string gets returned. For table formatting purposes alone, that would be nice.

        So I can imagine that TypeAdapters will need extending. My vote: go with the new design; the additional extensibility sounds warranted.

        But as I said, I haven't yet extended Fixture...

        --Patrick


        At 02:27 PM 8/31/2004, you wrote:

        <snip>
        The downside is that there are a bunch of new classes and more complex framework.
         
        So my questions to you are:
         
        -
                  do you care?
        -
                  If you do, do you like these ideas or hate them
        -
                  If you like them or hate them, please tell me why
         
        Thanks in advance for your feedback.
         
        David Chelimsky
        Object Mentor, Inc.
        www.objectmentor.com

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT


        Yahoo! Groups Links





        ------

        Patrick Wilson-Welsh
        902 681 1640 (office)
        902 681 1641 (fax)
      • Eric Heikkila
        Right now we are both extending fixtures and using TypeAdapters, although for different purposes. I need to do a little research and see if we can get the same
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 1, 2004
          Right now we are both extending fixtures and using
          TypeAdapters, although for different purposes.

          I need to do a little research and see if we can get
          the same functionality out of overriding some fixture
          methods instead of using the TypeAdapter mechanism.
          Right now, I kind of like being able to just use the
          bind/TypeAdapter code . . . but I''ll get back to you
          shortly. ;)

          -Eric

          --- David Chelimsky <david@...> wrote:

          >
          > I've been working on getting the dot net fitserver
          > in fitnesse up to speed
          > with the java version. As I was adding some
          > features, some design changes
          > emerged that I'm now questioning. They make
          > extension of fitnesse much more
          > flexible, but they also make it more complicated.
          > I'm posting this to fit
          > developers and fitnesse users because I'm interested
          > in feedback from both
          > sides of the equation.

          >
          > The downside is that there are a bunch of new
          > classes and more complex
          > framework.
          >
          >
          >
          > So my questions to you are:
          >
          >
          >
          > - do you care?
          >
          > - If you do, do you like these ideas or
          > hate them
          >
          > - If you like them or hate them, please
          > tell me why
          >
          >
          >
          > Thanks in advance for your feedback.
          >
          >
          >
          > David Chelimsky
          >
          > Object Mentor, Inc.
          >
          > www.objectmentor.com <http://www.objectmentor.com/>
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.