Chris Maddock

See https://github.com/nunit/nunit/issues/2268 for a more recent update on this issue.

Here are my thoughts: - I'd be keen to make a few breaking changes to the NUnit console/engine, including... -> Removal of App Domains -> Breaking changes to some command...

Just come across a another point: review the Engine API, and make some tactical breaking changes, e.g. - Single way to construct test packages - Refinement of RuntimeFramework offering (Returning...

> The main thing I'd add, which may only be a breaking change for third-party runners, is splitting up the engine into two layers as once discussed. Good idea. I...

I hit exactly the same problem a few months ago - @kdubau, did you come across this thread? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nunit-discuss/3-v-6bosbyM I never found the time to address it - I agree...

@CharliePoole - can you clarify what you meant here, from your post on NUnit-Discuss? > **The WorkItem simply runs the TestCommand** that was built for the test, which includes all...

I should add - this isn't an issue I imagine I'll have much time to look at personally, at least for a good while yet. 😞 But I'd be keen...

Auto-correct-influenced-design, I love it! 😆 Good list! Personally, I'd favour adding an `IncludeSetUpAndTearDown` property to `TimeoutAttribute` but which defaults to true. That would also give myself and @kdubau the ability...

> It's not a silent failure, which would be really bad. It's only not a silent failure if you're aware there's an independent MaxTimeAttribute as opposed to TimeoutAttribute - which...

>Regarding "silent failure" what I mean is that you don't want your tests to appear to pass when there is something wrong We agree on the definition of 'silent failure'....