Add MSTestV4 Support #426
Open
Add MSTestV4 Support #426
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: SeMuell <[email protected]>
SeMuell
force-pushed
the
feat/add_MSTestV4_support
branch
from
1fa509d to
84f4bc5
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Having a loosely coupled dependency like FluentAssertions to 'Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.AssertFailedException' with reflection would also work here. Doing this the direct dependency on the TestFramework could be removed and may be more future proof (maybe reasonable doing the same for the other projects). What do you think? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR introduces support for the latest MSTest version (4.0) to fix the file not found issue in #424.
Since the MSTestV2 package was also compatible with MSTestV3, I added another test project to have proper testing.
However, maybe there is a better, future-proof way for the implementation I haven't found yet in comparison to the naive approach, I'll keep digging.