Add strong name to assembly about mockhttp HOT 5 CLOSED

@jozefizso Is this still a requirement? Microsoft seems to be moving away from strong naming for third party components (https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/wiki/Strong-Naming), so I'd rather not go down that path unless it's really necessary.

from mockhttp.

No, it is not necessary to add strong name. Unit test projects does not have to be strongly named.

from mockhttp.

I ran into a situation where this would be very useful. When you make your unit tests a friend assembly, using InternalsVisibleTo, with a strongly named assembly, your unit tests do need to be strongly named. Would you accept a PR to add strong naming?

from mockhttp.

I've decided to go ahead with this (granted, 3.5 years later) because:

1. It's highly unlikely that anyone will want to upgrade
2. There's not much in the way of "MockHttp extension" libraries, so binding redirects for netfx really aren't a problem

from mockhttp.

Released in 6.0.0

from mockhttp.