tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9023944205100803414.post4563567119885123798..comments2010-10-12T11:18:23.059-07:00Jeff Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09075745057339916352noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9023944205100803414.post-74964400446740793462008-02-07T16:30:00.000-08:002008-02-07T16:30:00.000-08:00I've been looking at data-driven testing using NUnit for a while, and have created an extension which I've blogged about here: http://taumuon-jabuka.blogspot.com/2008/02/this-is-blog-post-to-explain-exactly.html, and it lives on taumuon.co.uk/rakija.<BR/><BR/>I'm not that happy with the interface though, can you explain a bit more about the dependency injection in MBUnit? It will either give me more food for thought, or pursuade me to switch to MBUnit to solve some of the issues I was blogging about :)<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Taumuonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12874508418428339669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9023944205100803414.post-70689477445375432982007-10-23T06:58:00.000-07:002007-10-23T06:58:00.000-07:00I'm currently using MbUnit v2 at my company, and I'm eagerly watching the development of v3 and xUnit.net.<BR/><BR/>I've also just skimmed through the xUnit Test Design Patterns book and the criticism of NUnit and therefore MbUnit with the [TestFixutreSetup] is exactly that the shared state is a 'bad thing' for constructing isolated test environments on a per-test basis.<BR/><BR/>Since this injection is basically shared state, how do you answer that? I'm guessing that their approach is to eliminate the need of having to remember how to clean up the environment to be ready for the next test, and that has been a concern in many of our test areas.Steven Mitchamhttp://geekswithblogs.net/smitchamnoreply@blogger.com