From 0cb0d96d6dcf2c2f7c3846d7451aa62623ca36e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Fuqua Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:56:41 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Update the conclusion --- readme.md | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/readme.md b/readme.md index 47e3684..be64600 100644 --- a/readme.md +++ b/readme.md @@ -208,13 +208,15 @@ small to read too much into it, but this is an important finding and something to watch out for. Based on documentation and richness of syntax I would want to use Fluent Assertions, but if the project has a large number of tests, the small performance difference could add up to a meaningful increase in total execution -time. If time to fully evaluate is lacking, then I feel that my best choice is -to upgrade Should to Shoudly and perhaps make time to pitch in on improving the -documentation. +time. If time to fully evaluate is lacking, then I feel that my best choices are +to either (a) focus on Assert.That syntax or (b) upgrade Should to Shoudly and +perhaps make time to pitch in on improving the documentation. Leaving existing +Should tests in place would seem to be harmless since the performance is good. | Framework | Documentation | Richness | Performance | |----------|-------------|---------|--------------------| -| NUnit3 | ++ | + | / | +| NUnit3 (Classic) | ++ | + | / | +| NUnit3 (Constraint) | ++ | ++ | ++ | | FluentAssertions | +++ | +++ | - | | Should | + | + | ++ | | Shouldly | + | ++ | ++ | \ No newline at end of file