ansaurus

Question

Should we use FxCop on UnitTest assemblies?

Answer 1

+2 A:

not worth the effort; FxCop is for production coding standards, not internal test code

(however, it doesn't hurt to give it a run-through and a once-over every now and then, in case it tells you something useful...)

Steven A. Lowe 2009-01-19 19:26:35

Huh? "not worth the effort" is a bit strong I'd say. Why should you treat "internal" code any differnt in quality as "production" code? Enforcing coding standards (they way FxCop can do) is an important part of checking the correctness of code - while surely not the *most* important or only one.

Christian.K 2009-01-20 06:05:28

@[Christian.K]: that's why I said it doesn't hurt to do it every now and then, just in case, but there's no reason for full FxCop conformity on unit-test code, or throwaway code, or one-shot utility code, et al. Use your best judgement.

Steven A. Lowe 2009-01-20 15:09:55

Answer 2

+1 A:

GO ahead if you have time on your hands. Its not a bad idea to make the cop take a look at all your code.

Perpetualcoder 2009-01-19 19:29:48

Answer 3

+1 A:

Yes but you don't have to be a maniac about it. You're tests are your maintenance coder's best friend. If your tests aren't easy to read your maintenance coder will have a hard time of things. I think it helps encourage better habits, unit test code does not have a permissive license to be sloppy.

Webjedi 2009-01-19 19:48:31

Answer 4

+4 A:

When I teach our unit test / TDD class, I usually tell people to write test code following the same principles as they would when writing prober production code. However, I acknowledge that some of the FxCop rules may generate too much noise.

Couldn't you use a suitable subset of the FxCop rules for the test code?

Brian Rasmussen 2009-01-19 19:48:50

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Should we use FxCop on UnitTest assemblies?

related questions