Chris Maddock

I agree with @kdubau - there's no need to change the behaviour of --timeout, if that can be done with an assembly level attribute. --- I want to decide on...

I still prefer the non-breaking change path - but I feel like people are more opposed to the attribute property, than I am to option 2! And you're both right,...

I would have thought an Epic implied we wanted people to take each issue on separately, where as my intention was that the functionality would be synchronized as one PR...

Sounds great! 😃 I wasn't sure if you were still looking at this or not. If it's a work in progress, that's great. No rush - whenever you manage to...

Fair enough. In that case, I'll just comment on the attached issues. What I don't want, is a new contributor unwittingly picking up one of those issues, when @Yarmonov has...

@nunit/framework-team If anyone's feeling particularly brave, I think this would be a great candidate for 4.0. It would allow us to standardise the behaviour of all these attributes and make...

I personally think this is too specific an area of .NET to justify inclusion in the main framework - but I think it is exactly the sort of thing that...

I have vague memories about having a similar discussion with @jnm2, and deciding there was no requirement for this, it being just an implementation detail. But I'm not looking at...

I don't believe assertions of any kind (such as Assert.Fail()) are allowed in either `TearDown` or `AfterTest` - the intention is that all assertions are made in your test, and...

Simple thing to check - as Charlie says, this is likely to be an issue in the framework instead of the console. Are you referencing the latest version of the...