CharliePoole

Yes... I agree. We should translate only known NUnit V2 internal property names to their new values when creating the XML. (I was only waiting for another committer to comment)

This seems like a reason for concern... > This branch is [1 commit ahead of](https://github.com/garuma/nunit/compare/nunit%3Anunit%3Amaster...mainloop-extensibility), [1326 commits behind](https://github.com/garuma/nunit/compare/mainloop-extensibility...nunit%3Anunit%3Amaster) nunit/nunit:master.

See correction to my comment above: s/log/lot/ I'm not sure what you mean WRT test parameters. For properties, the current code allows access right into the property bag associated with...

If Properties returns a type that includes the methods we want used, then nothing breaks except code that uses methods we __don't__ want used. It shouldn't matter in this case...

Let me answer your objection in more general terms. In my view it is __always__ possible to create an example with the aim of breaking something. It is, therefore, always...

I've long thought we should only expose string properties, since they are embedded in an XML string anyway. In that case, we could return `IList` or `IEnumerable`. Internally, we have...

You're right. I guess we're stuck with either `IList` or `IList`. WRT internal properties, they were all designed to be used by NUnit itself, although visible to users. They are...

@MaceWindu @zastrowm `TestContext` is part of the NUnit API for test writers and was intended to be readonly. This change was therefore treated as a bug. Custom applications have other...

@jnm2 For the sake of newcomers reading the thread, I'll recap what we have discussed many times before... 1. "Public API" is too broad a concept to be useful to...

@jnm2 "In other words, we can give ourselves whatever permissions we want to break people..." This is facile and disingenuous. You are well aware of prior discussions on this topic...