Sounds like a great idea actually. Some guidance on test naming would be great... Everyone has their conventions but I think naming tests appropriately is SO important that I think a tool like Test Lint could fare well if some test naming guidance were implemented. Plus xUnit.net... what's up with not supporting xUnit! :)
XUnit IS supported. how did you come to the conclusion that it wasn't?
What music is that in the video? :)
P.S. - Lint looks awesome.
I saw a lot of tips from your book The Art of Unit Testing back in the video. This is Awesome.
Is the beta free or will the RTM be a free product? Is it free for Typemock customers or is it really really free? :-)
I've just taken it for a spin. I was feeling a bit smug when it only flagged one of my tests. However, on closer inspection it looks like it doesn't take into account Assert.That calls. Is that something for a future build?
Oh wait... xUnit.net is on the list....
Shouldn't the use of assertion messages be enforced?