Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com
on 29 Jun 2009 at 8:33
Let's summarize the current situation. We have presently an undocumented
contract
verifier called "ArgumentValidationContract<TTarget>" which does that. But it
seems
finally that the value added is small, compared to the existing alternative
(data-
driven test by using rows or a static factory)
Another solution, as discussed in a thread is to replace the current
"horizontal"
syntax (one row per invalid combination of arguments) by a "vertical" one (one
row
per valid/invalid argument) and let the engine compute all the possibilities.
Unfortunately, the resulting syntax (initializer or fluent) is going to be
complex
and probably user unfriendly.
Should we drop that beast? Or do you thing about something else?
Original comment by Yann.Tre...@gmail.com
on 6 Jul 2009 at 7:15
Yeah, I don't really have a good general-purpose syntax for this. We should
probably
drop it for now.
Incidentally do you think we should allow contracts to be used as assertions
within
other tests?
Assert.VerifyContract(new CollectionContract(....));
Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com
on 6 Jul 2009 at 7:47
Original comment by jeff.br...@gmail.com
on 18 Jul 2009 at 5:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
Yann.Tre...@gmail.com
on 5 May 2009 at 8:29