Existing users, 
 RBUnit - 2.1REALbasic unit testing framework |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
All Feedback: 1 - 3 of 3
Excellent tool for RB programmers! 
- Version: 2.1, 4/24/2007 02:02PM PST
DrScott
I've used RBUnit for a long time in my projects and highly recommend it. It implements a REALbasic equivalent of the standard JUnit/NUnit/etc. unit testing framework. The sole capability that it lacks is mock objects, but that is a relatively minor omission.
Requires REALbasic 5.5 - Version: 1.0.1, 6/14/2004 12:21PM PST
(3 of 3 users found this comment useful)
macatari
Well MeV, the Requirements section of the description (in addition to the release notes included with the download) plainly states that REALbasic 5.5 is required. We don't know what else to tell you but it is a shame that you left a 1-star rating based on your misunderstanding of the system requirements.
Considering that REALbasic 4.5 was released around July 2002, you might want to consider upgrading. RB 5.5 has some great new features.
Considering that REALbasic 4.5 was released around July 2002, you might want to consider upgrading. RB 5.5 has some great new features.
won't run 
- Version: 1.0.1, 6/14/2004 11:15AM PST
(0 of 4 users found this comment useful)
MeV
"classes are encrypted which prevent this module from running, please contact the author"
What's up with that? If it's not supported on RB 4.5, it should say so in the description or what's needed to use the code should be provided.
What's up with that? If it's not supported on RB 4.5, it should say so in the description or what's needed to use the code should be provided.
