nunit-core team mailing list archive

[Ian Appleby <ian.appleby@xxxxxxx>]

One way or the other I vote it should be included.

The original .NET design plan for Property was to allow it to
transparently replace a field, so that you didn't have to use
superfluous getters/setters from the outset, but instead could add them
as required without refactoring other classes.  It's always been a plus
point for me, and I'd like to see the same principle carried through
testing.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of NUnit
Core Developers, which is the registrant for NUnit Framework.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/996427

Title:
  ListMapper.Property doesn't work with fields

Status in NUnit Test Framework:
  Triaged

Bug description:
  When using the ListMapper to perform a task such as: 
  > List.Map(values).Property("subValue") 
  the expected outcome (a list of subValues) is achieved if the property subValue is encapsulated (get/set), but not if it's a field.

  I'd assume this is a reflection quirk, but I'm not up on the details.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nunit-3.0/+bug/996427/+subscriptions