You can create a wrapper, but I think you can use your time a lot better. I would say that choosing the simplest one (my personal favorite is the NUnit War-horse) that suits your needs - the new framework adds functionality that will help you write more complex test devices.
However, I appreciate simplicity compared to "flexibility." In the future, if you want this βcool function X in the testing platform Yβ you can either write this specific test device using Y. (you could also transfer all the test fixtures to use Y for consistency - but time is always scarce) . Switching between 2 test modules is usually a monotonous job (rename attributes), however some may be more useful (disclaimer: no flight time with MbUnit)
Your comment, however, bothers me a little.
- Why the client decides the testing structure that you will use for development - this should be the choice of the development team. The client would not want you to define product requirements - he or she? The quality of the tests does not depend on the structure used, so I do not see how this affects the client.
source
share