On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You mention that properties, etc. are low-cost enough > for setup; obviously so. My concern was actually for > compilation of support classes (e.g. testing <java>); > I would hate to keep compiling and blowing away a > bunch of classes in each setUp/tearDown. Maybe we > should use before/After[Tests as Peter suggested], and > document that these should be limited to effects that > live beyond the scope of the Project instance (i.e. > FS, DB, etc.)?
I wasn't arguing against before/afterTests at all. You said yourself that it should be used for bigger cost setup code and compiling would certainly fit in. As for naming, I do have a long history of giving bad advice, so I kept silent. NUnit has Setup for the per test setup methods and TestFixtureSetup for per class setup, same for teardown. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
