10 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Hi Again,

Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.

However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
do anything for productivity either).

Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.

Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)

Yours,
Morten


Morten Mertner wrote:

Hi Oleg,

I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.

The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
pop-up context menus.

On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
griefs (hint, hint) :)

Yours,
Morten


Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:

>> Hello,
>>
>> We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's unit
>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>> test runners a part of the basic package. The software is free, you
>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>> days without registration prompt. ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>
>> Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>
>> Oleg Stepanov
>> Project Manager
>> JetBrains, Inc
>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>
>>

0
Comment actions Permalink

I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to catch
up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing for me
other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of curiosity, but
it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.

As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes working
with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has been
working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems renaming
and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it mistakenly deleted
an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately, I was able to back out to
the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works well from the file
system, but it's a pain keeping the file system synchronized with the
solution with TortoiseSVN.


"Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com> wrote in message
news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...

Hi Again,

>

Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.

>

However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
do anything for productivity either).

>

Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.

>

Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)

>

Yours,
Morten

>
>

Morten Mertner wrote:

>> Hi Oleg,
>>
>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>
>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>> pop-up context menus.
>>
>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Morten
>>
>>
>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's unit
>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>> test runners a part of the basic package. The software is free, you
>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>> days without registration prompt. ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>
>>> Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>
>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>> Project Manager
>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>
>>>


0
Comment actions Permalink

I don't want support for sourcecode control in ReSharper. The time has come
that ReSharper should focus only on the features directly related to
refactoring. Imho if there are plans to support source code control it
should not be embedded into ReSharper but as a plug-in.

Altough you can't do refactoring without testing I am in favor of extracting
all the unit test runner code from ReSharper and have that available as a
seperate plug-in as well.

I believe that the performance of ReSharper is greatly influenced by the
number of features built-in to ReSharper that are not directly related to
refactoring. In the end ReSharper will be one gigantic massive tool with a
whole bunch of features. Me for example see ReSharper as a refactoring tool
but if the performance of this tool is downgraded due to 80% additional
features that I will never use I shall find another tool.

Gabriel Lozano-Morán


"Lothan" <lothan@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ei22ef$mdc$1@is.intellij.net...
>I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to catch
>up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing for
>me other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of curiosity,
>but it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.
>

As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes working
with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has been
working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems
renaming and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it
mistakenly deleted an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately, I was
able to back out to the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works
well from the file system, but it's a pain keeping the file system
synchronized with the solution with TortoiseSVN.

>
>

"Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com> wrote in message
news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...

>> Hi Again,
>>
>> Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.
>>
>> However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
>> support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
>> enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
>> do anything for productivity either).
>>
>> Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
>> life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
>> to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
>> headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.
>>
>> Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
>> source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
>> This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
>> being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
>> valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
>> ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Morten
>>
>>
>> Morten Mertner wrote:
>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>
>>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
>>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>>
>>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>>> pop-up context menus.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
>>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Morten
>>>
>>>
>>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>  We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's
>>>> unit
>>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>>> test runners a part of the basic package.  The software is free, you
>>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>>> days without registration prompt.  ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>>
>>>>  Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>>
>>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>>> Project Manager
>>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>>
>>>>
>



0
Comment actions Permalink

I don't want support for sourcecode control in ReSharper. The time has come
that ReSharper should focus only on the features directly related to
refactoring. Imho if there are plans to support source code control it
should not be embedded into ReSharper but as a plug-in.

Altough you can't do refactoring without testing I am in favor of extracting
all the unit test runner code from ReSharper and have that available as a
seperate plug-in as well.

I believe that the performance of ReSharper is greatly influenced by the
number of features built-in to ReSharper that are not directly related to
refactoring. In the end ReSharper will be one gigantic massive tool with a
whole bunch of features. Me for example see ReSharper as a refactoring tool
but if the performance of this tool is downgraded due to 80% additional
features that I will never use I shall find another tool.

Gabriel Lozano-Morán


"Lothan" <lothan@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ei22ef$mdc$1@is.intellij.net...
>I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to catch
>up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing for
>me other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of curiosity,
>but it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.
>

As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes working
with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has been
working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems
renaming and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it
mistakenly deleted an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately, I was
able to back out to the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works
well from the file system, but it's a pain keeping the file system
synchronized with the solution with TortoiseSVN.

>
>

"Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com> wrote in message
news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...

>> Hi Again,
>>
>> Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.
>>
>> However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
>> support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
>> enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
>> do anything for productivity either).
>>
>> Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
>> life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
>> to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
>> headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.
>>
>> Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
>> source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
>> This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
>> being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
>> valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
>> ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Morten
>>
>>
>> Morten Mertner wrote:
>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>
>>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
>>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>>
>>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>>> pop-up context menus.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
>>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Morten
>>>
>>>
>>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's
>>>> unit
>>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>>> test runners a part of the basic package. The software is free, you
>>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>>> days without registration prompt. ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>>
>>>> Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>>
>>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>>> Project Manager
>>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>>
>>>>
>



0
Comment actions Permalink

Why do you think TestDriven.NET takes the prize over ReSharper'S UnitRun?
And keep in mind that TestDriven costs some money, and ReSharper UnitRun is
free....

--
Eugene Pasynkov
Developer
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Lothan" <lothan@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ei22ef$mdc$1@is.intellij.net...
>I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to catch
>up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing for
>me other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of curiosity,
>but it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.
>

As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes working
with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has been
working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems
renaming and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it
mistakenly deleted an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately, I was
able to back out to the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works
well from the file system, but it's a pain keeping the file system
synchronized with the solution with TortoiseSVN.

>
>

"Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com> wrote in message
news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...

>> Hi Again,
>>
>> Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.
>>
>> However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
>> support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
>> enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
>> do anything for productivity either).
>>
>> Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
>> life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
>> to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
>> headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.
>>
>> Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
>> source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
>> This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
>> being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
>> valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
>> ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Morten
>>
>>
>> Morten Mertner wrote:
>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>
>>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
>>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>>
>>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>>> pop-up context menus.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
>>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Morten
>>>
>>>
>>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's
>>>> unit
>>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>>> test runners a part of the basic package. The software is free, you
>>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>>> days without registration prompt. ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>>
>>>> Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>>
>>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>>> Project Manager
>>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>>
>>>>
>



0
Comment actions Permalink

The primary reasons I prefer TestDriven.NET/NCover/NCoverExplorer combination are as follows:
  • TestDriven.NET arguably encourages better productivity because it defaults to showing "X passed, X failed, X skipped" in the output window whereas with Unit Test Runner I have to watch and close (or resize) the window each time to see all test results.
  • TestDriven.NET's failed test output shows up in the Errors list, so it's easy to browse and double-clicking an error takes me to the failing test code. Unit Test Runner's output is arguably easier to read since it provides a larger dialog to see the results of all tests at a glance; however the window either sits on top of Visual Studio making it difficult to browse the code with the window open, or it's docked and is cumbersome to browse because of its large size. I've tried docking the window to all four sides of Visual Studio, but it's either too tall or too wide to allow me to easily browse the code while browsing failed tests.
  • TestDriven.NET provides code coverage analysis with either Visual Studio Team Edition or with NCover and NCoverExplorer. This is by far the biggest selling point for TestDriven.NET because it lets me see at a glance which code paths I've overlooked in my unit tests.
  • NUnit test results and NCover code coverage analysis are scriptable from NAnt/MSBuild, although this is more a selling point for NCover than Unit Test Runner.
"Eugene Pasynkov (JetBrains)" <Eugene.Pasynkov@jetbrains.com> wrote in message news:ei2e5c$9a8$1@is.intellij.net...
> Why do you think TestDriven.NET takes the prize over ReSharper'S UnitRun?
> And keep in mind that TestDriven costs some money, and ReSharper UnitRun is
> free....
>
> --
> Eugene Pasynkov
> Developer
> JetBrains, Inc
> http://www.jetbrains.com
> "Develop with pleasure!"
> "Lothan" <lothan@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:ei22ef$mdc$1@is.intellij.net...
>>I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to catch
>>up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing for
>>me other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of curiosity,
>>but it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.
>>
>> As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes working
>> with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has been
>> working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems
>> renaming and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it
>> mistakenly deleted an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately, I was
>> able to back out to the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works
>> well from the file system, but it's a pain keeping the file system
>> synchronized with the solution with TortoiseSVN.
>>
>>
>> "Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com> wrote in message
>> news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...
>>> Hi Again,
>>>
>>> Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.
>>>
>>> However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code control
>>> support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
>>> enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
>>> do anything for productivity either).
>>>
>>> Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
>>> life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around, forgetting
>>> to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
>>> headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.
>>>
>>> Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
>>> source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
>>> This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
>>> being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
>>> valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
>>> ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;-)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Morten
>>>
>>>
>>> Morten Mertner wrote:
>>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>>
>>>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code control
>>>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>>>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>>>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>>>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>>>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>>>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>>>> pop-up context menus.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still causing me
>>>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Morten
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>  We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's
>>>>> unit
>>>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>>>> test runners a part of the basic package.  The software is free, you
>>>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>>>> days without registration prompt.  ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>>>
>>>>>  Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>>>
>>>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>>>> Project Manager
>>>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
> ]]>

0
Comment actions Permalink

Lothan wrote:

The primary reasons I prefer TestDriven.NET/NCover/NCoverExplorer
combination are as follows:

  • TestDriven.NET arguably encourages better productivity because it

defaults to showing "X passed, X failed, X skipped" in the output
window whereas with Unit Test Runner I have to watch and close (or
resize) the window each time to see all test results.

  • TestDriven.NET's failed test output shows up in the Errors list,

so it's easy to browse and double-clicking an error takes me to
the failing test code. Unit Test Runner's output is arguably
easier to read since it provides a larger dialog to see the
results of all tests at a glance; however the window either sits
on top of Visual Studio making it difficult to browse the code
with the window open, or it's docked and is cumbersome to browse
because of its large size. I've tried docking the window to all
four sides of Visual Studio, but it's either too tall or too wide
to allow me to easily browse the code while browsing failed tests.

  • TestDriven.NET provides code coverage analysis with either Visual

Studio Team Edition or with NCover and NCoverExplorer. This is by
far the biggest selling point for TestDriven.NET because it lets
me see at a glance which code paths I've overlooked in my unit tests.

  • NUnit test results and NCover code coverage analysis are

scriptable from NAnt/MSBuild, although this is more a selling
point for NCover than Unit Test Runner.

"Eugene Pasynkov (JetBrains)" <Eugene.Pasynkov@jetbrains.com
<mailto:Eugene.Pasynkov@jetbrains.com>> wrote in message
news:ei2e5c$9a8$1@is.intellij.net...
> Why do you think TestDriven.NET takes the prize over ReSharper'S
UnitRun?
> And keep in mind that TestDriven costs some money, and ReSharper
UnitRun is
> free....
>
> --
> Eugene Pasynkov
> Developer
> JetBrains, Inc
> http://www.jetbrains.com
> "Develop with pleasure!"
> "Lothan" <lothan@newsguy.com <mailto:lothan@newsguy.com>> wrote in
message
> news:ei22ef$mdc$1@is.intellij.net...
>>I tend to agree. ReSharper's unit test runner has a long way to go to
catch
>>up with the ability of VSTS or TestDriven.NET and really does nothing
for
>>me other than clutter my menus. I used it a couple times out of
curiosity,
>>but it offers no compelling reason for me to use it.
>>
>> As for source control, I would love to have a plug-in that makes
working
>> with Subversion in Visual Studio a pleasure. I know Arild Fines has
been
>> working hard on release AnkhSVN 1.0, but I continue having problems
>> renaming and deleting files and folders. At one point tonight it
>> mistakenly deleted an entire folder instead of a file. Fortunately,
I was
>> able to back out to the previous revision to recover. TortoiseSVN works
>> well from the file system, but it's a pain keeping the file system
>> synchronized with the solution with TortoiseSVN.
>>
>>
>> "Morten Mertner" <morten@mertner.com <mailto:morten@mertner.com>>
wrote in message
>> news:ei1vh5$rj0$1@is.intellij.net...
>>> Hi Again,
>>>
>>> Ah, I see in another mail that this is not planned.
>>>
>>> However, I strongly disagree with the statement that source code
control
>>> support does not fit with the position of ReSharper as a productivity
>>> enhancement (considering that having a unit test runner doesn't exactly
>>> do anything for productivity either).
>>>
>>> Source code control is a hassle and it should not complicate the daily
>>> life of developers, yet usually does so. Moving files around,
forgetting
>>> to add files, and whatever else can go wrong, usually causes some
>>> headaches that a well written plugin could help avoid.
>>>
>>> Another item that I would consider relevant was a facility for doing
>>> source code reviews in a team, much like Cenqua's new product Crucible.
>>> This would move ReSharper from being a personal productivity tool to
>>> being an enterprise development tool, and in my book make it much more
>>> valuable that yet another unit test runner. And it would require that
>>> ReSharper is capable of dealing with source code repositories ;)
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Morten
>>>
>>>
>>> Morten Mertner wrote:
>>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>>
>>>> I know this may not be useful, but I would consider source code
control
>>>> a much more relevant feature for ReSharper than unit testing.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, people doing unit testing are either using VSTS or the
>>>> freely available TestDriven.NET, and I'd expect very few people to be
>>>> motivated to use ReSharper's unit test runner. Granted, some will
>>>> appreciate this (dotTrace users come to mind), but with existing tools
>>>> that work very well there is little incentive for the rest of us.
>>>> Personally, I would like an option to remove the added clutter from my
>>>> pop-up context menus.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the AnkhSVN plugin for Subversion is still
causing me
>>>> griefs (hint, hint) :)
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Morten
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oleg Stepanov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are glad to announce opening of Early Access Program for our new
>>>>> product -- ReSharper UnitRun. This product is basically ReSharper's
>>>>> unit
>>>>> testing functionality released separately that will be available for
>>>>> free. At JetBrains we believe that developers should have free tools
>>>>> supporting their basic needs and recent development of TDD makes unit
>>>>> test runners a part of the basic package. The software is free, you
>>>>> only will be asked to register on the first use. You may cancel the
>>>>> registration in which case you will be able to use the add-in for 30
>>>>> days without registration prompt. ReSharper UnitRun is based on new
>>>>> ReSharper core which will be available as part of the next ReSharper
>>>>> release. Note that UnitRun cannot be installed on machines with
>>>>> ReSharper 2.0 installed (but you probably don't need it in the case
>>>>> because ReSharper already has UnitRun inside).
>>>>>
>>>>> Go now and download it from our EAP download page:
>>>>> http://www.jetbrains.net/confluence/display/ReSharper/Download
>>>>>
>>>>> Oleg Stepanov
>>>>> Project Manager
>>>>> JetBrains, Inc
>>>>> http://www.jetbrains.com
>>>>> "Develop with pleasure!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Docking the UTR window should preserve its location between sessions. I
dock my UTR and Output windows as document tabs, and find that it's the
best place for both in terms of being able to use the information they
convey.

I just booted testdriven.net off my machine because I found the clutter
on VS unacceptable, and it didn't give me any compelling advantage
versus the productivity multipliers in R#R.

Are you surveying their user base, Gabriel? If not, then don't claim
that you're representative of 95% of their user base!

0
Comment actions Permalink

Hi,

I just booted testdriven.net off my machine because I found the clutter
on VS unacceptable, and it didn't give me any compelling advantage
versus the productivity multipliers in R#R.


The TestDriven suite is not a productivity tool, it is a testing tool.
Much like R# is a great productivity tool, TD is a great testing tool,
compared to which the unit test runner in R# really is inferior (and the
new TD 2.0 release makes the gap even larger than it was before this
thread started).

However, my original point was not to provoke a discussion of which is
best - each user best decides that for himself.

Instead, the point was to raise some concerns that I have for the
current R# roadmap/feature set. My main concern is that I feel that unit
testing adds little value to R# - I would much rather see more
development on the productivity side of the tool, increased stability
and better performance, over additional features such as a unit test runner.

As an alternative to the unit test runner I suggested that there was a
real need for a working Subversion plugin, but agree with other comments
that this probably shouldn't be bundled with R#.

Yours,
Morten

0
Comment actions Permalink

Morten Mertner wrote:

Hi,

>> I just booted testdriven.net off my machine because I found the clutter
>> on VS unacceptable, and it didn't give me any compelling advantage
>> versus the productivity multipliers in R#R.


The TestDriven suite is not a productivity tool, it is a testing tool.
Much like R# is a great productivity tool, TD is a great testing tool,
compared to which the unit test runner in R# really is inferior (and the
new TD 2.0 release makes the gap even larger than it was before this
thread started).

Are you referring to NUnit framework tests or MBUnit tests here? Because
I haven't seen any great advantages in TD2.0 over the R#R test runner
with regard to NUnit. Unit testing IS a productivity tool; apparently
what you refer to as unit testing and what I refer to as unit testing do
not necessarily line up.


Instead, the point was to raise some concerns that I have for the
current R# roadmap/feature set. My main concern is that I feel that unit
testing adds little value to R# - I would much rather see more
development on the productivity side of the tool, increased stability
and better performance, over additional features such as a unit test runner.


Unit testing is an innate part of refactoring; if you are using R#R to
support productivity gains in refactoring, then it is reasonable to be
able to perform unit testing independent of another product when you're
operating in refactorings that R#R doesn't directly support (notably,
move method)

Jonathan Choy

0
Comment actions Permalink

Hi Jonathan,

>> The TestDriven suite is not a productivity tool, it is a testing tool.
>> Much like R# is a great productivity tool, TD is a great testing tool,
>> compared to which the unit test runner in R# really is inferior (and the
>> new TD 2.0 release makes the gap even larger than it was before this
>> thread started).

Are you referring to NUnit framework tests or MBUnit tests here? Because
I haven't seen any great advantages in TD2.0 over the R#R test runner
with regard to NUnit. Unit testing IS a productivity tool; apparently
what you refer to as unit testing and what I refer to as unit testing do
not necessarily line up.


If you include "being effective when unit testing" in the productivity
category, you might as well include "being effective when working with
source code repositories, performing code reviews, deploying,
documenting, etc.", which sort of defeats the productivity category in
the first place.

Productivity should be centered on the task of writing code, and ways of
making that specific task easier. This includes IDE improvements,
refactoring capbalities, live templates, and many other things covered
by R#, but not the ability to execute a unit test.

Mind you, we can easily agree that one can be more productive using one
unit test tool over another, but that still doesn't make the unit test
runner a productivity tool. It's just part of how good it is at what it
was designed for.

>> Instead, the point was to raise some concerns that I have for the
>> current R# roadmap/feature set. My main concern is that I feel that unit
>> testing adds little value to R# - I would much rather see more
>> development on the productivity side of the tool, increased stability
>> and better performance, over additional features such as a unit test
>> runner.


Unit testing is an innate part of refactoring; if you are using R#R to
support productivity gains in refactoring, then it is reasonable to be
able to perform unit testing independent of another product when you're
operating in refactorings that R#R doesn't directly support (notably,
move method)


Then, by your own argument, R# should not depend on NUnit or another
unit testing framework. However, to the best of my knowledge there is no
alternative for the Assert class provided with R#.

Also, if the above was true, shouldn't R# support propagating my changes
(such as moving a file) to the source repository, since this is just as
vital a task as ensuring that the code still works?

Yours,
Morten


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.