I think you are expecting the wrong thing in your
example of
[ExpectedException(typeof(NotImplementedException),"a")].
"a" is simply the message that will print out in the
test results if the wrong (or no) exception is thrown.
Thinking positive, maybe Microsoft does this
intentionally to promote 3rd party and OSS support for
their IDE.
Thinking negatively, they smoke crack sometimes.
:-)
I will like to add:
The private accessor (for unit testing private methods)
creation is broken. The accessors never get created in
my case. I get a message saying "... has no
implementation"
Does it even make sense to write a test to expect an
exception of type System.Exception?
The "prop" snippet sucks
public string Whatever {get;set;} is easily typed. But
when you're doing .NET 2.0 in VS2008 that snippet is
useless!
If MSTEST is still lagging WAY behind NUnit and MBUnit,
then how do they ever expect to reach the people *who
actually DO THIS STUFF* ??
I mean seriously, VSTS & TFS introduced a toy
testing framework and they got severely ridiculed for
it. I can't believe they're making the same mistake
twice.
I guess Microsoft must think Mort doesn't refactor or
they simply aren't interested in putting in more than
token effort. Thankfully ReSharper rocks.
Sure there's an easy extensibility mechanism: use
MbUnit... ;-)
After all, we have ALTernatives. *grin*
Somehow the vs.net team has the ability to produce an
automation interface that allows for Reshaper etc to be
written, yet on the other hand they do not produce the
actual interface tools that people ask for.
Whenever I get frustrated with vs.net I still marvel at
the automation.
Resharper is just so awesome.. I tried coding the other
day without it and I almost cried.
vsts is not particularly good, but the deep integration
with the IDE and TFS is enough of a selling point for my
requirements. However, why it is only in premium vs.net
is beyond me... this should be the first thing they
promote to the wider vs.net community.