I think you are expecting the wrong thing in your example of [ExpectedException(typeof(NotImplementedException),"a")]. "a" is simply the message that will print out in the test results if the wrong (or no) exception is thrown.
Thinking positive, maybe Microsoft does this intentionally to promote 3rd party and OSS support for their IDE.
Thinking negatively, they smoke crack sometimes.
:-)
I will like to add:
The private accessor (for unit testing private methods) creation is broken. The accessors never get created in my case. I get a message saying "... has no implementation"
Does it even make sense to write a test to expect an exception of type System.Exception?
The "prop" snippet sucks
public string Whatever {get;set;} is easily typed. But when you're doing .NET 2.0 in VS2008 that snippet is useless!
If MSTEST is still lagging WAY behind NUnit and MBUnit, then how do they ever expect to reach the people *who actually DO THIS STUFF* ??
I mean seriously, VSTS & TFS introduced a toy testing framework and they got severely ridiculed for it. I can't believe they're making the same mistake twice.
I guess Microsoft must think Mort doesn't refactor or they simply aren't interested in putting in more than token effort. Thankfully ReSharper rocks.
Sure there's an easy extensibility mechanism: use MbUnit... ;-)
After all, we have ALTernatives. *grin*
Somehow the vs.net team has the ability to produce an automation interface that allows for Reshaper etc to be written, yet on the other hand they do not produce the actual interface tools that people ask for.
Whenever I get frustrated with vs.net I still marvel at the automation.
Resharper is just so awesome.. I tried coding the other day without it and I almost cried.
vsts is not particularly good, but the deep integration with the IDE and TFS is enough of a selling point for my requirements. However, why it is only in premium vs.net is beyond me... this should be the first thing they promote to the wider vs.net community.