mirror of
https://github.com/dotnet/skills.git
synced 2026-09-20 09:49:54 +08:00
b9db51de9d
* Add TUnit-focused eval scenarios for dotnet-test-frameworks Adds 5 new evaluation scenarios and tightens 2 existing scenarios to exercise the expanded TUnit coverage in dotnet-test-frameworks/SKILL.md (see #677). New scenarios: - Convert cross-framework assertions to TUnit syntax (await / IsEqualTo / IsTrue / IsNull / IsAssignableTo / Contains / Throws<T>) - Diagnose silently-passing TUnit test with missing await (debugging mystery framed without naming the pitfall) - Refactor TUnit try/catch to native exception assertion (Throws<T>() / ThrowsExactly<T>() / WithMessage) - TUnit lifecycle hooks at test / class / assembly / session scope - TUnit skip mechanisms — attribute, assembly-wide [assembly: Skip], and dynamic Skip.Test(...) Updated scenarios: - Identify TUnit framework: rubric now distinguishes [ClassDataSource] as a fixture/data source rather than a class marker (TUnit classes are convention-based, like xUnit) - Identify integration tests: adds a TUnit Project D using live SqlConnection and requires recommending [Category("Integration")] for TUnit Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Mirror TUnit eval scenarios into Vally spec Apply the same updated and new scenarios as in eval.yaml to the parallel eval.vally.yaml so both pipelines exercise the new TUnit-focused checks. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Amaury Levé <amauryleve@github.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
555 lines
23 KiB
YAML
555 lines
23 KiB
YAML
scenarios:
|
|
- name: "Cross-framework assertion equivalence mapping"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I have these MSTest assertions in my test file and I need to know their equivalents in both xUnit and NUnit. Please provide a complete mapping for all six:
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
|
|
Assert.IsTrue(condition);
|
|
Assert.IsNull(obj);
|
|
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(obj, typeof(MyClass));
|
|
CollectionAssert.Contains(list, item);
|
|
StringAssert.Contains(str, "substring");
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_contains"
|
|
value: "Assert.Equal"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Assert\\.True|Assert\\.False"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Assert\\.Null|Assert\\.NotNull"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Assert\\.IsAssignableFrom|Assert\\.IsType"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Assert\\.Contains"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Assert\\.That\\(.*Is\\.EqualTo"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Is\\.True|Is\\.False"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Is\\.Null"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Has\\.Member|Does\\.Contain"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Provided correct xUnit equivalents for all six MSTest assertions"
|
|
- "Provided correct NUnit equivalents using the constraint model (Assert.That with Is/Has/Does syntax)"
|
|
- "Covered collection assertion equivalents for both target frameworks"
|
|
- "Covered string assertion equivalents for both target frameworks"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Identify TUnit framework and its unique attributes"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I inherited a project with this test file and I'm not sure what testing framework it uses.
|
|
Can you identify it and explain the key attributes — in particular whether the test class
|
|
needs any marker attribute, and what `[ClassDataSource<T>]` actually does?
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
using TUnit.Core;
|
|
|
|
[ClassDataSource<DatabaseFixture>]
|
|
public class OrderTests
|
|
{
|
|
private readonly DatabaseFixture _db;
|
|
|
|
public OrderTests(DatabaseFixture db)
|
|
{
|
|
_db = db;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public async Task CreateOrder_WithValidItems_Succeeds()
|
|
{
|
|
var order = new Order { Items = new[] { "Widget" } };
|
|
var result = await _db.OrderService.CreateAsync(order);
|
|
await Assert.That(result.Id).IsNotNull();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Test]
|
|
[Skip("Waiting for payment gateway sandbox")]
|
|
public async Task ProcessPayment_ChargesCorrectAmount()
|
|
{
|
|
// TODO: implement
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "[Tt][Uu]nit"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "ClassDataSource"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Skip"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Correctly identified the framework as TUnit"
|
|
- "Clarified that TUnit test classes do NOT require a class-level marker attribute (convention-based, like xUnit) — `[ClassDataSource<T>]` is a fixture / data source, not the class marker"
|
|
- "Explained that `[ClassDataSource<DatabaseFixture>]` injects a shared fixture instance into the class constructor"
|
|
- "Identified `[Test]` as the test method marker"
|
|
- "Noted the [Skip] attribute with required reason string as TUnit's mechanism for skipping tests"
|
|
- "Mentioned that TUnit assertions are async and must be awaited (e.g. `await Assert.That(...).IsNotNull()`)"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Replace try-catch with framework-native exception assertions"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
My team lead says these tests should use proper exception assertions instead of try/catch.
|
|
Can you refactor each one using its framework's native approach?
|
|
|
|
MSTest test:
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[TestMethod]
|
|
public void ProcessOrder_EmptyOrder_ThrowsException()
|
|
{
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
var processor = new OrderProcessor();
|
|
processor.ProcessOrder(new Order());
|
|
Assert.Fail("Expected exception was not thrown");
|
|
}
|
|
catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
|
|
{
|
|
Assert.AreEqual("Order must contain at least one item", ex.Message);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
xUnit test:
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
public void ProcessOrder_EmptyOrder_ThrowsException()
|
|
{
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
var processor = new OrderProcessor();
|
|
processor.ProcessOrder(new Order());
|
|
Assert.True(false, "Expected exception was not thrown");
|
|
}
|
|
catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
|
|
{
|
|
Assert.Equal("Order must contain at least one item", ex.Message);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
NUnit test:
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public void ProcessOrder_EmptyOrder_ThrowsException()
|
|
{
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
var processor = new OrderProcessor();
|
|
processor.ProcessOrder(new Order());
|
|
Assert.Fail("Expected exception was not thrown");
|
|
}
|
|
catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
|
|
{
|
|
Assert.That(ex.Message, Is.EqualTo("Order must contain at least one item"));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[TestMethod\\].*Assert\\.Throws(Exactly)?<|Assert\\.Throws(Exactly)?<.*AreEqual"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Fact\\].*Assert\\.Throws<|Assert\\.Throws<.*Assert\\.Equal"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Throws\\.TypeOf<InvalidOperationException>|Assert\\.That\\(.*Throws"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Replaced the MSTest try/catch with Assert.ThrowsExactly<T> or Assert.Throws<T>"
|
|
- "Replaced the xUnit try/catch with Assert.Throws<T>"
|
|
- "Replaced the NUnit try/catch with the constraint-model pattern or Assert.Throws<T>"
|
|
- "Preserved exception message verification in all three refactored versions"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Skip annotations across all four frameworks"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I maintain a solution with test projects using MSTest, xUnit, NUnit, and TUnit.
|
|
I need to temporarily skip some tests in each project with a reason message explaining why.
|
|
What's the correct attribute to use in each framework?
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "MSTest"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "xUnit"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "NUnit"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "TUnit"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Ignore\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Skip\\s*=\\s*\""
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Skip\\("
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Provided the correct skip attribute for MSTest ([Ignore] with optional reason)"
|
|
- "Provided the correct skip mechanism for xUnit (Skip property on [Fact] or [Theory])"
|
|
- "Provided the correct skip attribute for NUnit ([Ignore] with required reason)"
|
|
- "Provided the correct skip attribute for TUnit ([Skip] with required reason)"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Convert NUnit lifecycle methods to xUnit equivalents"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I'm migrating this NUnit test class to xUnit. How should I convert the setup and teardown methods?
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[TestFixture]
|
|
public class CustomerRepositoryTests
|
|
{
|
|
private DbContext _context;
|
|
private CustomerRepository _repo;
|
|
|
|
[OneTimeSetUp]
|
|
public void ClassSetup()
|
|
{
|
|
Database.Initialize();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[OneTimeTearDown]
|
|
public void ClassTeardown()
|
|
{
|
|
Database.Cleanup();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[SetUp]
|
|
public void TestSetup()
|
|
{
|
|
_context = new TestDbContext();
|
|
_repo = new CustomerRepository(_context);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[TearDown]
|
|
public void TestTeardown()
|
|
{
|
|
_context.Dispose();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public void FindById_ExistingCustomer_ReturnsCustomer()
|
|
{
|
|
var customer = _repo.FindById(1);
|
|
Assert.That(customer, Is.Not.Null);
|
|
Assert.That(customer.Name, Is.EqualTo("Alice"));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "IClassFixture"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "IDisposable|Dispose"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Fact\\]"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Converted per-test [SetUp]/[TearDown] to constructor and IDisposable.Dispose"
|
|
- "Converted class-level [OneTimeSetUp]/[OneTimeTearDown] to an IClassFixture<T> with the fixture's constructor and Dispose"
|
|
- "Removed [TestFixture] and converted [Test] to [Fact]"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Identify integration tests by markers and code patterns"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I have a test solution with hundreds of tests. I need to separate integration tests from
|
|
unit tests for CI pipeline optimization. Here are samples from three projects — which ones
|
|
are integration tests and what indicators tell you that?
|
|
|
|
Project A (MSTest):
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[TestClass]
|
|
[TestCategory("Integration")]
|
|
public class PaymentGatewayTests
|
|
{
|
|
[TestMethod]
|
|
public async Task ChargeCard_ValidCard_ReturnsSuccess()
|
|
{
|
|
var client = new HttpClient();
|
|
var gateway = new PaymentGateway(client);
|
|
var result = await gateway.ChargeAsync("4111111111111111", 99.99m);
|
|
Assert.IsTrue(result.Success);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Project B (xUnit):
|
|
```csharp
|
|
public class OrderApiTests
|
|
{
|
|
[Fact]
|
|
[Trait("Category", "Integration")]
|
|
public async Task CreateOrder_ReturnsCreatedStatus()
|
|
{
|
|
using var factory = new WebApplicationFactory<Program>();
|
|
var client = factory.CreateClient();
|
|
var response = await client.PostAsJsonAsync("/orders", new { Item = "Widget" });
|
|
Assert.Equal(HttpStatusCode.Created, response.StatusCode);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Project C (NUnit):
|
|
```csharp
|
|
[TestFixture]
|
|
public class DatabaseQueryTests
|
|
{
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public void GetCustomer_ById_ReturnsExpectedName()
|
|
{
|
|
using var conn = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;...");
|
|
conn.Open();
|
|
var name = conn.QuerySingle<string>("SELECT Name FROM Customers WHERE Id = 1");
|
|
Assert.That(name, Is.EqualTo("Alice"));
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Project D (TUnit):
|
|
```csharp
|
|
using TUnit.Core;
|
|
|
|
public class InventoryServiceTests
|
|
{
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public async Task ReserveStock_AgainstLiveWarehouse_ReducesAvailableQuantity()
|
|
{
|
|
using var conn = new SqlConnection("Server=warehouse-db;...");
|
|
await conn.OpenAsync();
|
|
var service = new InventoryService(conn);
|
|
var ok = await service.ReserveAsync(sku: "WIDGET-1", quantity: 5);
|
|
await Assert.That(ok).IsTrue();
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "TestCategory.*Integration|\\[TestCategory\\(\"Integration\"\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Trait.*Category.*Integration|\\[Trait\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "SqlConnection|database"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Category\\(\"Integration\"\\)\\]|Category.*Integration.*NUnit|NUnit.*Category"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "[Tt][Uu]nit"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Identified Project A as integration test via the [TestCategory(\"Integration\")] marker and direct HttpClient usage"
|
|
- "Identified Project B as integration test via the [Trait(\"Category\", \"Integration\")] marker"
|
|
- "Identified Project C as integration test based on direct database access (SqlConnection), even without an explicit category marker"
|
|
- "Identified Project D as an integration test based on direct database access against a live warehouse server"
|
|
- "Recommended adding a framework-appropriate integration category marker to Project C (NUnit `[Category(\"Integration\")]`) and Project D (TUnit `[Category(\"Integration\")]`)"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Convert cross-framework assertions to TUnit syntax"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
I'm porting a small test class from MSTest to TUnit. Can you rewrite each of these
|
|
assertions in the TUnit equivalent? Please show me the exact line each one becomes.
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual);
|
|
Assert.IsTrue(order.IsValid);
|
|
Assert.IsNull(result.Error);
|
|
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(handler, typeof(IOrderHandler));
|
|
CollectionAssert.Contains(processedIds, 42);
|
|
var ex = Assert.ThrowsException<InvalidOperationException>(() => processor.Run());
|
|
Assert.AreEqual("Order is empty", ex.Message);
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "await\\s+Assert\\.That"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.IsEqualTo\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.IsTrue\\(\\)"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.IsNull\\(\\)"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.IsAssignableTo<|\\.IsTypeOf<"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.Contains\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.Throws(Exactly)?<InvalidOperationException>"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Used `await Assert.That(...)` for every converted assertion (TUnit assertions are async and must be awaited)"
|
|
- "Mapped equality, boolean, null, type, and collection-contains assertions to the correct TUnit fluent member (IsEqualTo / IsTrue / IsNull / IsAssignableTo or IsTypeOf / Contains)"
|
|
- "Converted the exception assertion to `await Assert.That(() => ...).Throws<T>()` (or `ThrowsExactly<T>()`) and preserved the message check (e.g. via `.WithMessage(...)` or a follow-up awaited assertion on the exception)"
|
|
- "Did not silently drop the `await` on any assertion or leave NUnit/xUnit-style `Assert.Throws<T>` syntax in the TUnit output"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Diagnose silently-passing TUnit test with missing await"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
This TUnit test is green in CI, but I'm certain `CalculateTotal` is returning the wrong
|
|
value (I added a deliberate bug that returns 0 instead of the sum). Why is the test still
|
|
passing, and how do I fix it?
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
using TUnit.Core;
|
|
|
|
public class CartTests
|
|
{
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public async Task CalculateTotal_TwoItems_ReturnsSum()
|
|
{
|
|
var cart = new Cart();
|
|
cart.Add(new Item(price: 10m));
|
|
cart.Add(new Item(price: 32m));
|
|
|
|
var total = cart.CalculateTotal();
|
|
|
|
Assert.That(total).IsEqualTo(42m);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "await"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "(never (run|execute|awaited)|not (run|awaited|executed)|silently|discard|fire[- ]and[- ]forget|unobserved)"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "await\\s+Assert\\.That\\(total\\)\\.IsEqualTo"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Correctly identified the missing `await` on the `Assert.That(...).IsEqualTo(...)` expression as the root cause"
|
|
- "Explained that TUnit assertions are async and produce a task — without `await`, the assertion is never observed and the test passes regardless of the actual value"
|
|
- "Provided the corrected line: `await Assert.That(total).IsEqualTo(42m);`"
|
|
- "Optionally mentioned the built-in TUnit analyzer that warns when an assertion is not awaited, or suggested treating that analyzer warning as an error in CI"
|
|
- "Did NOT misdiagnose the failure as a bug in `Cart.CalculateTotal`, a comparison-precision issue (decimal vs double), or a missing test discovery problem"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "Refactor TUnit try/catch to native exception assertion"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
My team lead wants this TUnit test to use the framework's native exception assertion
|
|
instead of try/catch, and to verify both the exception type and the message in one
|
|
idiomatic expression. Please refactor it.
|
|
|
|
```csharp
|
|
using TUnit.Core;
|
|
|
|
public class OrderProcessorTests
|
|
{
|
|
[Test]
|
|
public async Task ProcessOrder_EmptyOrder_ThrowsInvalidOperation()
|
|
{
|
|
var processor = new OrderProcessor();
|
|
try
|
|
{
|
|
processor.ProcessOrder(new Order());
|
|
Assert.Fail("Expected exception was not thrown");
|
|
}
|
|
catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
|
|
{
|
|
await Assert.That(ex.Message).IsEqualTo("Order must contain at least one item");
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "await\\s+Assert\\.That\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\.Throws(Exactly)?<InvalidOperationException>"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "(WithMessage|IsEqualTo).*Order must contain at least one item|Order must contain at least one item"
|
|
- type: "output_not_matches"
|
|
pattern: "try\\s*\\{[\\s\\S]*catch\\s*\\(InvalidOperationException"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Removed the try/catch block entirely and replaced it with a single awaited TUnit exception assertion on the throwing delegate"
|
|
- "Used `Throws<InvalidOperationException>()` (or `ThrowsExactly<InvalidOperationException>()`) to assert the exception type"
|
|
- "Verified the message in an idiomatic way (e.g. `.WithMessage(\"Order must contain at least one item\")` chained on the throw assertion, or an awaited follow-up assertion on the captured exception)"
|
|
- "Kept the `await` on every assertion call in the refactored test"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|
|
|
|
- name: "TUnit lifecycle hooks at test, class, assembly, and session scope"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
In a TUnit test project, I need code that runs:
|
|
|
|
1. Before every individual test in a class (e.g. reset a shared in-memory database).
|
|
2. Once before the first test in a class and once after the last (e.g. open / dispose
|
|
a class-scoped fixture).
|
|
3. Once before any test in the assembly starts and once after they all finish
|
|
(e.g. start / stop an in-process WireMock server for the whole assembly).
|
|
4. Once at the very start of the whole test run and once at the very end
|
|
(e.g. apply EF Core migrations and tear down the database for the entire session).
|
|
|
|
What attributes / methods does TUnit use for each of these, and where do they go?
|
|
A short C# sketch for each scope would be ideal.
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Before\\(Test\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[After\\(Test\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Before\\(Class\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[After\\(Class\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Before\\(Assembly\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[After\\(Assembly\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Before\\(TestSession\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[After\\(TestSession\\)\\]"
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "Provided per-test hooks using `[Before(Test)]` / `[After(Test)]` (or noted the constructor + IAsyncDisposable alternative) on instance methods of the test class"
|
|
- "Provided per-class hooks using `[Before(Class)]` / `[After(Class)]` on static methods of the test class"
|
|
- "Provided per-assembly hooks using `[Before(Assembly)]` / `[After(Assembly)]` on static methods, noting they apply to every test in the assembly"
|
|
- "Provided per-session hooks using `[Before(TestSession)]` / `[After(TestSession)]` on static methods, noting they run exactly once across the whole test run"
|
|
- "Did NOT confuse TUnit's scoped `[Before(...)]` / `[After(...)]` attributes with NUnit's `[SetUp]`/`[TearDown]`/`[OneTimeSetUp]`/`[OneTimeTearDown]` or xUnit's `IClassFixture<T>` / `IAsyncLifetime`"
|
|
- "Optionally mentioned that hook methods may accept a context object (e.g. `TestContext`, `ClassHookContext`) and/or a `CancellationToken`, or that `[BeforeEvery(Test)]` / `[AfterEvery(Test)]` (and the `Class`/`Assembly` variants) run for every test/class/assembly across the run"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 180
|
|
|
|
- name: "TUnit skip mechanisms — attribute, assembly-wide, and dynamic"
|
|
expect_activation: false
|
|
prompt: |
|
|
In a TUnit test project I need three different ways to skip tests, each with a clear
|
|
reason message:
|
|
|
|
1. Skip one specific test method (it's waiting on a payment-gateway sandbox).
|
|
2. Skip every test in an entire assembly when that assembly is built in a special
|
|
"smoke" configuration.
|
|
3. Inside a test method, decide at runtime to skip the test if the current machine
|
|
is not joined to the corporate VPN.
|
|
|
|
What does each one look like in TUnit?
|
|
assertions:
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "\\[Skip\\("
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "assembly\\s*:\\s*Skip"
|
|
- type: "output_matches"
|
|
pattern: "Skip\\.Test\\("
|
|
- type: "exit_success"
|
|
rubric:
|
|
- "For the single-test case, used the `[Skip(\"reason\")]` attribute on the test method with a required reason string"
|
|
- "For the assembly-wide case, used an assembly-level attribute such as `[assembly: Skip(\"…\")]` (or equivalent class-level `[Skip(...)]` on a base class) rather than annotating each test individually"
|
|
- "For the runtime case, used the dynamic `Skip.Test(\"reason\")` call inside the test method, after the VPN check, and explained that this is TUnit's equivalent of a runtime skip (distinct from a true \"inconclusive\" state)"
|
|
- "Did NOT propose xUnit's `[Fact(Skip = \"…\")]`, MSTest's `Assert.Inconclusive()`, or NUnit's `Assume.That(...)` as TUnit answers"
|
|
reject_tools: ["bash", "edit", "create"]
|
|
timeout: 120
|