Comments on: Test names go wild http://sarahtaraporewalla.com/testing/test-names-go-wild/ Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:31:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Sarah Taraporewalla http://sarahtaraporewalla.com/testing/test-names-go-wild/#comment-15 Sarah Taraporewalla Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:32:00 +0000 http://sarahtarap.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/test-names-go-wild/#comment-15 @mark and @robin: haven't really looked into many other mocking libraries. I might check them out. But unfortunately I am not using .NET 3.5 @mark and @robin: haven’t really looked into many other mocking libraries. I might check them out. But unfortunately I am not using .NET 3.5

]]> By: Robin Clowers http://sarahtaraporewalla.com/testing/test-names-go-wild/#comment-14 Robin Clowers Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:35:00 +0000 http://sarahtarap.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/test-names-go-wild/#comment-14 Also you might check out out Rhino Mocks, specifically the new Arrange, Act, Assert syntax: http://www.ayende.com/wiki/Rhino+Mocks+3.5.ashx. It is a much more natural and less verbose way to do mocking. Also you might check out out Rhino Mocks, specifically the new Arrange, Act, Assert syntax: http://www.ayende.com/wiki/Rhino+Mocks+3.5.ashx. It is a much more natural and less verbose way to do mocking.

]]> By: Mark Needham http://sarahtaraporewalla.com/testing/test-names-go-wild/#comment-13 Mark Needham Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:37:00 +0000 http://sarahtarap.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/test-names-go-wild/#comment-13 Re: mocking frameworks in C# - have you tried out Moq(http://code.google.com/p/moq/)?<br/><br/>We were using it on our project - removes a lot of the annoying stubbing that NMock makes you do. I think it might require .NET 3.5 installed though so I guess it depends if you have that or not. Re: mocking frameworks in C# – have you tried out Moq(http://code.google.com/p/moq/)?

We were using it on our project – removes a lot of the annoying stubbing that NMock makes you do. I think it might require .NET 3.5 installed though so I guess it depends if you have that or not.

]]>