spam: suspected: Re: [Mono-devel-list] patch for nunit supportfor xmlconf

RafaelMizrahi rafim at
Sun Jun 26 13:27:24 EDT 2005

Hi Eno,
So, what is you opinion regards the W3C CONF, NUnit integration?
Because we wish to do the same with XSLT test suite.

Just to make my intentions, visible:
Our QA overall goal is to have a unified integrated NUnit reporting system.
A report system with history and regression reports, (and eventually) binded
to bug database (maybe I should start an NBugZilla project ;).


-----Original Message-----
From: mono-devel-list-bounces at
[mailto:mono-devel-list-bounces at] On Behalf Of Andrew Skiba
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:34 PM
To: Atsushi Eno
Cc: mono-devel mailing list
Subject: Re: spam: suspected: Re: [Mono-devel-list] patch for nunit
supportfor xmlconf

Atsushi Eno wrote:

> If you didn't need any comments, then you could just commit things.
> But since you didn't do that, then what you asked is all readers'
> comments. I'm just a reader here, without mentioning any kind of
> "permission" and I think your way of answering is weird. No?

Of course, I wanted comments, that's why I sent the patch to the list. I 
just was afraid it will not have too much response. The next time I will 
post it during the Boston working week.

>     - if it is integrated into "make run-test" in the
>       containing directory (i.e. in mcs/class/System.XML).

No, it's not integrated. Now I understand, what confused in my message.

>     - if it is to generate a TestFixture class which contains
>       Test case methods.

Impossible to make. w3c opens different files but the code that opens is 
the same. If I'd write regular TestFixture class, it would look like:

class C {
public void f1 () {
public void f2 () {

And so on, 3000 testcases.

>     - if it reports "failure" on "you should remove fixed bugs
>       from list" cases (I mentioned above), since when it
>       is standalone tests it dictates us to do that.

Sorry, I did not understand what do you mean here. How is it related to 

> Not all of readers would read the entire patch. They will first
> check ChangeLog (and/or the post itself) and see if it is
> significant for themselves or not. If that is not understandable,
> then they will ask what it means. That's what I did.

That's OK, but I did not understand question in your first mail.

> See how Rafi answered to the question, which clarifies things.

Yes, Rafi gave good reference.


Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list at

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list