'NUnit.Framework.IgnoreAttribute' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments

[NobbZ]

Hi there!

When trying to do the leap-exercise, I am confronted with the following error:

'NUnit.Framework.IgnoreAttribute' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments

It is repeating in lines 12, 19, and 26 of LeapTes.cs.

I am using MSVS 2013 CE

and have the following packages.config:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<packages>
  <package id="NUnit.Console" version="3.0.1" />
  <package id="NUnit.Runners" version="3.0.1" />
</packages>

Since the NUnit.Runners now does show as "NUnit Console Version 3" when searching I do think it is a versioning issue with NUnit. Could you please provide a proper Version selector in the documentation or update the track to NUnit 3?

[NobbZ]

I downgraded to 2.6.4, now it seems to work.

[kytrinyx]

/cc @jwood803 (in case you know this stuff)

[jwood803]

Looks like the version 3 of NUnit had some breaking changes. Since this is the case, I'll get to updating the tests. Folks shouldn't have to specify what version of NUnit to use.

[bressain]

Heh, beat me to it. Yeah, looks like a comment is required for Ignore attributes for nUnit 3.

[ErikSchierboom]

@bressain @jwood803 I am looking into this, but it is a bit hard to support both NUnit 3 and NUnit 2. This is because the Ignore propertiy of the TestCase attribute has changed type, from bool to string. Furthermore, the Result property in that class has been renamed to ExpectedResult, also a breaking change.

I have a branch that makes the tests compatible with NUnit 3, but is that what we want? Perhaps any has a clever solution to how to support both?

[jwood803]

I think we can just switch to support NUnit 3. It may be a bit of a weird transition to folks who are used to it being in NUnit 2 and, when they pull down the next exercise, have to upgrade to NUnit 3. Maybe we can just add this to the setup doc?

[ErikSchierboom]

I've created a PR that updates the tests to use NUnit 3: #50

[jwood803]

You're quick @ErikSchierboom! And you even updated the docs! I'll merge this after meetings.

[ErikSchierboom]

@jwood803 😎 Once this is merged, could you look at #49? Once that is merged, I think I can get a FAKE build script similar to the F# version working.