Unit Testing, Agile Development, Leadership & .NET - By Roy Osherove
Looking awesome... I can see it being used when searching for areas to add test coverage to, or teaching new programmers unit tests.
In the previous post I introduced Depender , to help find dependency issues in your code (usually for
Silly question: why didn't you implement this as a custom set of FxCop rules?
Peli: Because I want it to be a simple tool to run, inspect and extend. and FxCop is none of those things.
Where did ClrTest.Reflection came from?
Nice.
One thing that it needs is a set of default excludes.
Right now it is reporting errors on static calls to string.Concat and GC.SuppressFinalizers, for insta.ce
Oren:
The IL Parser is from the methodvisualier I enhanced a while ago
weblogs.asp.net/.../debugger-visualizers-for-methodinfo-dynamicmethod-and-methodbase.aspx
which was written by Haibo Luo:
blogs.msdn.com/.../484861.aspx
with a new version here:
blogs.msdn.com/.../take-two-il-visualizer.aspx
Roy,
I also wonder why you did not base it on FxCop.
Why I can buy "not easy to extend" statement regarding FxCop, how's FxCop complicated to run and inspect?
And even with "not easy to extend", there is ready build integration etc. with FxCop.
J
I have played around with FxCop but I found it hard to use and write against. event test (google fxcopunit)
worst thing: most people don't bother using it at all.
Do you use it?
Does anyone who's reading this comment?
I am not sure how many people write custom rules for FxCop (my guess is not too many),
Myself, I do use it w/out custom rule and know those who do as well (some may use it as part of VS Team System integrated code analysis). Why I am not as happy as I could be about it, I think it is very good tool if you invest some thought before rolling that out in your company.
What do you use for static code analysis in TypeMock? Don't tell me it is Resharper analysis.
And most people do not use unit testing either (let alone mocking frameworks :), but would you write a new one?
I am not saying FxCop would do better, but it surely has wider range than any new tool.
I use FxCop, it is integrated with my CI system.
Btw, Gendarme is much easier to extend with new rules (www.mono-project.com/Gendarme).
Pingback from Useful Links #8 | GrantPalin.com
How is this tool different from NDepend?
The tool complains when your assembly depends on another assembly unless I put the assemblies that my assembly depends on (such as log4net) in the depender folder. I guess I could put them in Path as well. Any other way that I am missing?
Tanmay: for now putting them in the path or in the same folder is the workaround.
Pingback from Dew Drop - July 7, 2008 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew
Pingback from andreas-schlapsi.com ?? Detecting Testability Problems
Three words - reinventing the wheel...
David M. Kean:
Three words: YOu are wrong.
FxCop and others only do rules that are "bad"
Depender will also show you "good" places to inject. it's not just "warnings" but also shows places that you can use already.
I'd love to see something that does the same though!
General Kill Your Users Table : Rob Conery isn't afraid to ask the tough questions - do we really need to store users' data? With services like OpenID , where the user has complete control over their data and what they present to a site, it's certainly
Please ignore the negative comments.
The tool looks excellent and I'm looking forward to playing with it.
Rik
Pingback from My Dev Kit | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew