Feature/#1019

[linkdotnet]

This PR closes #1019

Additionally I did the following:

• Made BunitTestRenderer internal

[egil]

I do not think there is a reason to keep ITestRenderer around. Lets remove that at the same time.

Why do you think we should make BunitRenderer internal?

[linkdotnet]

I do not think there is a reason to keep ITestRenderer around. Lets remove that at the same time.

Why do you think we should make BunitRenderer internal?

Originally I made it internal because there was no need to have the interface and implementation.
I am much in favor of not exposing any internal stuff to the public for some reasons:

1. Flexibility: We can just change the renderer without worrying.
2. Control over use: I am looking towards the deterministic renderer where the user could control render cycles outside of the WaitFor helpers. As the API is there probably users will run into that pitfall. We can protect them from doing such things.
3. The renderer is an implementation detail: we need it to create something the user can make easy asserts on - but how and why this is done is our responsibility.

If we abolish the interface, probably we have to make the renderer public or remove some functions that are present on the renderer itself. All in all I don't see much in favor of having the BunitRenderer available for a user.

[egil]

I did a quick search on GitHub, and there are a some that uses TestRenderer in their code, so I think it is worthwhile to keep that public, with some/most of our methods marked internal. But it would be great if we just call it BunitRenderer and skip the interface.

[linkdotnet]

I did a quick search on GitHub, and there are a some that uses TestRenderer in their code, so I think it is worthwhile to keep that public, with some/most of our methods marked internal. But it would be great if we just call it BunitRenderer and skip the interface.

Hmm isn't that the interface version ITestRenderer? So in conclusion: Abolish the interface but keep TestRenderer public, did I get this correctly?

[egil]

I did a quick search on GitHub, and there are a some that uses TestRenderer in their code, so I think it is worthwhile to keep that public, with some/most of our methods marked internal. But it would be great if we just call it BunitRenderer and skip the interface.

Hmm isn't that the interface version ITestRenderer? So in conclusion: Abolish the interface but keep TestRenderer public, did I get this correctly?

When I searched for "TestRenderer" I found too many hits from other frameworks that uses a similar name. "ITestRenderer" is a bit more specific, and "BunitRenderer" will be even more searchable :)