NUnit VS ua-parser-js

.NET / xUnit / NUnit / MSTest

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.

Next, you need to install a testing framework that will be used for performing unit testing in your project. Several testing frameworks are available depending on the programming language used to create an application. For example, JUnit is commonly used for Java apps, pytest for Python apps, NUnit for .NET apps, Jest for JavaScript apps, and so on. We’ll use the Jest framework for this tutorial since we are using JavaScript.

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:

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.

So I wrote extension attribute for Nunit, the opposite of how the retry attribute works.

This is a basic example of how to create an NUnit unit test for a simple API in a controller with C#. You can find more information and resources on the NUnit website and in the NUnit documentation.

Has #NUnit helped you, your career, or your organization? We'd love for you to tell that story here, to celebrate Charlie: https://github.com/nunit/nunit/discussions/4283

After over TWENTY years leading the NUnit project, Charlie is stepping back.

Has NUnit helped you, your career, or your organization? We'd love to hear about it at https://github.com/nunit/nunit/discussions/4283.

> To attempt to quantify Charlie’s contributions to NUnit is a daunting task. He was the lead of NUnit across at least 207 releases in 37 different repositories, authoring 4,898 commits across them. He participated in 2,990 issues, 1,305 PRs, and impacted 6,992,983 lines of code. And those are only the ones we can easily find; our numbers are sourced from after NUnit moved the project to GitHub in 2011, which means there are at least 9 additional years of work not quantified above.

I think of Charlie as one of the ".NET OSS OGs". I'd love to see him celebrated.

Just look at all the big companies doing it

https://faisalman.github.io/ua-parser-js/

This project is backed under MIT License, special shout out to project UA-Parser, as liguard uses a piece of its source-code.

With NPM, what's actually published is not what's in the git repo, so it's harder to inspect/review vulnerabilities or hijacking. With composer, what's in git _is_ what composer pulls (with the exception of rules in .gitattributes to exclude files etc), making it much easier to trace. One such example: https://github.com/faisalman/ua-parser-js/issues/536

Composer packages are vendor namespaced, so hijacking an abandoned package is not possible (and it is with NPM), some examples like https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/10/github_npm_package/

Sure, I suppose in theory it could happen with other ecosystems, but for some reason it doesn't. It sure seems to just keep happening in NPM though.

From the other side, npm package may be hijacked(as it happened recently for ua-parser-js and to other packages earlier). To mitigate that, I don't know, probably, subscribing to some security digest would be the most helpful.

On Oct. 22, 2021, developers of a very common NPM package, ua-parser-js, discovered that some attackers uploaded a compromised version of the package containing malware for Linux and Windows, and were capable of stealing data (at least passwords and cookies from the browser).

Since Neovim 0.5 release (which has full Lua support) I see more and more amazing Lua plugins being developed, and I think this trend will likely to continue. But I recently got more concerned about security risks associated with the way Neovim plugins being installed and used (especially after seeing recent compromises like ua-parser-js or coa). Installing typical Neovim plugin is basically downloading and executing random code from the internet on your machine with your user privileges, so hijacked or deliberately malicious plugin could potentially do a lot of damage (like stealing keys/passwords, installing keylogger or just rm -rf / for fun).

thread about compromise https://github.com/faisalman/ua-parser-js/issues/536