moq
xUnit
moq | xUnit | |
---|---|---|
20 | 36 | |
5,722 | 4,058 | |
1.5% | 1.6% | |
7.1 | 9.2 | |
4 days ago | about 17 hours ago | |
C# | C# | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
moq
- Warum wird so wenig Open-Source-Software in Unternehmen genutzt?
- The release notes for Moq 4.20.2 seem to suggest, that this version does not contain this dubious mechanism [obfuscated DLL collecting commit emails], although it may be temporary, as the reason is that it breaks builds on MacOS.
-
.NET developers alert: Moq NuGET package exfiltrates user emails from git
Moq’s prior version, 4.18.4, free of the exfiltration behavior, accounts for 6,765,006 downloads in the past six weeks, demonstrating the potential blast radius of privacy breach if a developer hadn’t noticed the issue and raised it with the community.
-
Ask HN: Benefits to Keeping Packages Updated?
In light of the Moq issue yesterday[0] I'm interested to understand why the consensus seems to be so in favor of keeping packages up-to-date in software.
The common explanation I see is it "keeps you up to date with security and bug fixes".
But in practice this seems to just involve most orgs mandating Dependabot and mindlessly updating every dependency when a new version becomes available. (Yes in an ideal world you code review every change in every dependency, but... I mean, let's be real here. Just take the update frequency of the AWS SDK packages in isolation, very few orgs are actually doing this)
As a maintainer of an open source library I know most releases are a crapshoot, they're just as likely to contain new bugs and flaws as they are to fix old ones.
So staying up-to-date seems to open up codebases to far greater risks than outdated dependencies:
1) Zero days, a new package launches with some critical security flaw that isn't going to get noticed for some time.
2) Supply chain attacks, old packages are generally immutable. Therefore most supply chains attacks seem to involve take-overs of existing package (name)s by disgruntled or new hostile 'maintainers'. The new versions are far more at risk.
3) New bugs, the dirty truth of OSS is most work is done by unpaid people with little time or ability to focus. Most software isn't formally verified. New updates are a risk.
In addition the old version is a known quantity. Unless you know absolutely the version you are running is compromised (log4j, OpenSSL) what benefits does updating actually bring? The default presumption that version number goes up is better seems like yet more security/compliance cargo cult behavior.
What am I missing here?
[0] https://github.com/moq/moq/issues/1374
- Moq: Warnings with Latest Version from SponsorLink
- Moq SponsorLink and supporting OSS more broadly
-
Popular open source project Moq criticized for quietly collecting data
NSubstitute is good, I used it at a previous job.
I've favored Moq in the past because I think there are a couple of things it makes a bit easier or is a bit less opinionated about, but NSub is perfectly cromulent as well.
Someone posted a quick guide to migrating a bunch of it easily in one of the issues in the Moq repo discussing this whole mess: https://github.com/moq/moq/issues/1374#issuecomment-16712411...
-
The Moq-gate: You Either Die a Hero...
Moq was is a popular .NET mocking library that has accumulated over 475.7 million downloads as of now.
-
Does Moq extract and send my email to the cloud via SponsorLink?
Going by reports in the releated Github issue Moq does not let users opt out of this privacy-invading data collection: https://github.com/moq/moq/issues/1372
This is sad. Moq was my favorite mocking framework in .net. I will not be using it moving forward and if I had any projects using it I'd rip it out ASAP.
- Moq – Privacy issues with SponsorLink, starting from version 4.20
xUnit
-
Optimizing C# code analysis for quicker .NET compilation
Several well-known NuGet packages such as xUnit.net, FluentAssertions, StyleCop, Entity Framework Core, and others include by default a significant number of Roslyn analyzers. They help you adhere to the conventions and best practices of these libraries.
-
Integration testing in Umbraco 10+: Validating document types
Most of my rules apply to document types, so let's build some tests for document types. We start by creating a new test class and a new test function and getting a list of all document types. This test is created using xUnit and FluentAssertions:
-
Comprehensive Unit Testing: A Line-by-Line Approach
xUnit -> https://xunit.net/
-
CI/CD Pipeline Using GitHub Actions: Automate Software Delivery
.NET / xUnit / NUnit / MSTest
-
Fluent Assertions: Fluently Assert the Result of .NET Tests
This library extends the traditional assertions provided by frameworks like MSTest, NUnit, or XUnit by offering a more extensive set of extension methods. Fluent Assertions supports a wide range of types like collections, strings, and objects and even allows for more advanced assertions like throwing exceptions.
-
FluentValidation in .NET
You can verify the functionality of this validator by writing the following tests (using xUnit):
-
Running a XUnit test with C#?
The git repo has other runners. AssemblyRunner appears to be the best fit for an already compiled tests project, but there is a runner that can be wrapped into an MSBuild task for example.
-
Setting up a simple testing project with C#
At this point you're going to see a familiar screen asking you to select a project. Here we're looking for a test project. By default, Visual Studio gives you access to 3 different testing frameworks based on your choice of project. These are MSTest, XUnit and NUnit. Ultimately, all 3 of these testing accomplish the same thing, and I've worked with all of them at various points in my career. The difference is mainly in exact syntax and documentation. Although, it's generally considered that MSTest is a little "older" than NUnit or XUnit, so I tend to see it less now. For the purposes of this demo, I'm going to go with NUnit:
-
Integration tests for AWS serverless solution
xUnit unit tests tool
-
Test-Driven Development
Use a testing framework: Utilize a testing framework like NUnit, xUnit, or MSTest to create, organize, and run your tests. These frameworks provide a consistent way to write tests, generate test reports, and integrate with continuous integration tools.
What are some alternatives?
gomock - GoMock is a mocking framework for the Go programming language.
Shouldly - Should testing for .NET—the way assertions should be!
NSubstitute - A friendly substitute for .NET mocking libraries.
NUnit - NUnit Framework
Fluent Assertions - A very extensive set of extension methods that allow you to more naturally specify the expected outcome of a TDD or BDD-style unit tests. Targets .NET Framework 4.7, as well as .NET Core 2.1, .NET Core 3.0, .NET 6, .NET Standard 2.0 and 2.1. Supports the unit test frameworks MSTest2, NUnit3, XUnit2, MSpec, and NSpec3.
mockery - A mock code autogenerator for Go
Moq - Repo for managing Moq 4.x [Moved to: https://github.com/moq/moq]
AutoFixture - AutoFixture is an open source library for .NET designed to minimize the 'Arrange' phase of your unit tests in order to maximize maintainability. Its primary goal is to allow developers to focus on what is being tested rather than how to setup the test scenario, by making it easier to create object graphs containing test data.
cell-cms - CMS leve, self-contained e prático de utilizar! Feito por desenvolvedores e para desenvolvedores!
MSTest - MSTest framework and adapter