CharliePoole

If it's no longer in the docs I agree it should be added. However it isn't related to parallel execution because the timing is the same whether tests are run...

@JPVenson Definitely... if all or part of nunit/nunit#2594 were implemented, the docs would need to change.

There was in the past a complete explanation of all this, which is why I wrote "if it's no longer in the docs." This is a very fundamental aspect of...

Here's the minimum documentation for parallelizable attribute wrt "unspecified" behavior... "Parallel fixtures and test cases work exactly the same as non-parallel tests, except where specified differently on this page." :smile:...

Yeah... it might be that the page in question is lost (no longer working on this project, I'm not sure). There was always a page in the past that explained...

Some of what you point out is by design, some things may be bugs and some things are just the way they are because... "History." Also, since fluent syntax goodness...

I wouldn't say that such an expression is impossible, but I do think it requires a fairly complete rewrite of the underlying code that (sort of) parses the syntax as...

If anyone is interested, I'm currently rewriting the whole constraint-building thing for my TCLite framework. If I can get it to work, it might be useful here.

I think that's an important issue but it's orthogonal to the question of generics. So far, I've only implemented just enough assertions and constraints to exercise the builder because otherwise...

A separate attribute means we would have to resolve conflicts if both appeared. What about re-defining to negative order values mean relative to the end. That is, -1 would mean...