[Mono-list] Missing Types from corlib

[A Rafael D Teixeira]

>From: "Nick Drochak" <ndrochak@gol.com>
>The only thing left to consider is the advantages of Attributes.  They
>are transported more easily with the assembly since they're embedded.
>Also, they can more easily be used by other tools that may use/examine
>an assembly.  For instance, my other plan was to extend the Nunit tests
>to look for the [MonoTODO]'s and avoid testing incomplete methods, for
>example.  And an automated build system could run the unit tests after a
>commit and email the committer and class maintainer if a test fails.
>The maintainer's email address would be in the attribute.

Maybe we can go half-n-half. MonoTODO can be an attribute, because as Miguel 
said, it is something you come back to clear it when the task is done, so 
probably it wonīt go out on "production" code. And so your NUnit extension 
would be very welcome. But beware of costs for NUnit performance, because 
probably a whole tree of dependencies would need to be checked for 
[MonoTODO].

Ex:

class ToBeTested
{

  public int TestMe(int someValue)
  {
    return PrivTestMe(someValue+1);
  }

  <MonoTODO("ndrochak@gol.com")>
  private int PrivTestMe(int someValue)
  {
    return 0; // TODO: make the right calculation
  }

}

NUnit has to check ToBeTested.TestMe(), but that depends on PrivTestMe that 
isnīt OK, Right? Or the programmer has to keep tabs on those dependencies 
and propagate the attribute?

That latest form seems to be error-prone...

Rafael Teixeira
Brazilian Developer


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.