Block explicit tests for 3.10 #471
Conversation
jnm2
changed the title
|
This commit is very big. Is this a mix of code from multiple things? The implementation of the hidden property looks good, but there is a lot of other stuff here I don't really get, my bad. Can you explain for me what it is doing? |
jnm2
force-pushed
the
jnm2/filter_without_explicit
branch
from
f83ec50
to
36bf90e
Compare
|
Rebased on master. No problem! This is not a mix of code from other things. Besides the XML doc typo, everything here was essential to the approach I took. I wanted to use the list of commits to document why each change was necessary as far as I could see. I am happy to talk about what I did or try alternatives. 😊 Explaining the entire diff at once might be hard for me. Is there a specific change in a specific commit that I can start with? |
|
LTGM |
|
@OsirisTerje I added the documentation. Does that look clear enough for future readers? |
| /// Stores the information needed to initialize a <see cref="TestCase"/> | ||
| /// which can be inherited from an ancestor node during the conversion of test cases. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| public sealed class CachedTestCaseInfo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe a good name for this is InheritableTestInfo?
|
Good to go , thanks ! |
The rest of the 3.10 work for #47.
I used a new, non-category, non-trait, separate, hidden bool TestProperty. This is cleaner than re-using the display values we put in the Category or Traits collections; otherwise, we'll detect NUnit categories or properties named Explicit as the run state when they are not, and block them too.
The last commit is the minimum possible part of the refactor #457 to remove the otherwise necessary ugly hack. I wanted to go further and do the same thing to the Category property, but that just would be starting to redo the same work in #457. I still want to do #457 ASAP post-3.10.