-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
Feature/#1019 #1083
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature/#1019 #1083
Conversation
84adb72
to
a22812f
Compare
I do not think there is a reason to keep Why do you think we should make BunitRenderer internal? |
Originally I made it
If we abolish the interface, probably we have to make the renderer public or remove some functions that are present on the renderer itself. All in all I don't see much in favor of having the |
I did a quick search on GitHub, and there are a some that uses TestRenderer in their code, so I think it is worthwhile to keep that public, with some/most of our methods marked internal. But it would be great if we just call it |
Hmm isn't that the interface version |
When I searched for "TestRenderer" I found too many hits from other frameworks that uses a similar name. "ITestRenderer" is a bit more specific, and "BunitRenderer" will be even more searchable :) |
This PR closes #1019
Additionally I did the following:
BunitTestRenderer
internal