Sounds like a great idea actually. Some guidance on test
naming would be great... Everyone has their conventions
but I think naming tests appropriately is SO important
that I think a tool like Test Lint could fare well if
some test naming guidance were implemented. Plus
xUnit.net... what's up with not supporting xUnit! :)
XUnit IS supported. how did you come to the conclusion
that it wasn't?
What music is that in the video? :)
P.S. - Lint looks awesome.
I saw a lot of tips from your book The Art of Unit
Testing back in the video. This is Awesome.
Is the beta free or will the RTM be a free product? Is
it free for Typemock customers or is it really really
free? :-)
I've just taken it for a spin. I was feeling a bit smug
when it only flagged one of my tests. However, on closer
inspection it looks like it doesn't take into account
Assert.That calls. Is that something for a future build?
Oh wait... xUnit.net is on the list....
Shouldn't the use of assertion messages be enforced?