How to design custom action method in Selenium Grid architecture - selenium

I have a very basic question related to how to design method for executing selenium GRID.
In the current implementation of selenium framework in my project, we have created an action class which includes all selenium WebElelement actions in a static format.
For sequential script execution, there is no issue. But for parallel script execution, I heard that we can't design a method as static as only one copy will be created. Then, how to write custom action method which we can use in other classes.
Could you please advise on this.
Current Implementation:
public class ActionUtil{
public static void selectByVisibleText(WebElement element, String visibleText, String elementName)
{
try {
Select oSelect = new Select(element);
oSelect.selectByVisibleText(text);
log.info(text + " text is selected on " + elementName);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("selectByVisibleText action failed.Exception occured :" + e.toString());
}
}
}
Use of 'selectByVisibleText' static method in other page classes:
public void selectMemorableQuestion1(String question) {
ActionUtil.selectByVisibleText(memorableQuestion1, question, "memorableQuestion1");
}

If You're trying to make parallel test run, and use methods in that way avoid static methods.
You need to add the synchronized modifier if you are working with objects that require concurrent access.
You may have concurrency issue (and being in non thread-safe situation) as soon as the code of your static method modify static variables.
So bottom line use synchronized modifier, avoid using static modifier due to thread-safe issues.
public class ActionUtil{
public synchronized void selectByVisibleText(WebElement element, String visibleText, String elementName)
{
try {
Select oSelect = new Select(element);
oSelect.selectByVisibleText(text);
log.info(text + " text is selected on " + elementName);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("selectByVisibleText action failed.Exception occured :" + e.toString());
}
}
so call would be:
ActionUtil.selectByVisibleText(...);

Related

How to Take Screenshot when TestNG Assert fails?

String Actualvalue= d.findElement(By.xpath("//[#id=\"wrapper\"]/main/div[2]/div/div[1]/div/div[1]/div[2]/div/table/tbody/tr[1]/td[1]/a")).getText();
Assert.assertEquals(Actualvalue, "jumlga");
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
The assert should not be put before your capture screen. Because it will immediately shutdown the test process so your code
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
will be not reachable
This is how i usually do:
boolean result = false;
try {
// do stuff here
result = true;
} catch(Exception_class_Name ex) {
// code to handle error and capture screen shot
captureScreen(d, "Fail");
}
# then using assert
Assert.assertEquals(result, true);
1.
A good solution will be is to use a report framework like allure-reports.
Read here:allure-reports
2.
We don't our tests to be ugly by adding try catch in every test so we will use Listeners which are using an annotations system to "Listen" to our tests and act accordingly.
Example:
public class listeners extends commonOps implements ITestListener {
public void onTestFailure(ITestResult iTestResult) {
System.out.println("------------------ Starting Test: " + iTestResult.getName() + " Failed ------------------");
if (platform.equalsIgnoreCase("web"))
saveScreenshot();
}
}
Please note I only used the relevant method to your question and I suggest you read here:
TestNG Listeners
Now we will want to take a screenshot built in method by allure-reports every time a test fails so will add this method inside our listeners class
Example:
#Attachment(value = "Page Screen-Shot", type = "image/png")
public byte[] saveScreenshot(){
return ((TakesScreenshot)driver).getScreenshotAs(OutputType.BYTES);
}
Test example
#Listeners(listeners.class)
public class myTest extends commonOps {
#Test(description = "Test01: Add numbers and verify")
#Description("Test Description: Using Allure reports annotations")
public void test01_myFirstTest(){
Assert.assertEquals(result, true)
}
}
Note we're using at the beginning of the class an annotation of #Listeners(listeners.class) which allows our listeners to listen to our test, please mind the (listeners.class) can be any class you named your listeners.
The #Description is related to allure-reports and as the code snip suggests you can add additional info about the test.
Finally, our Assert.assertEquals(result, true) will take a screen shot in case the assertion fails because we enabled our listener.class to it.

How to persist/read-back Run Configuration parameters in Intellij plugin

I'm making a basic IntelliJ plugin that lets a user define Run Configuration (following the tutorial at [1]), and use said Run Configurations to execute the file open in the editor on a remote server.
My Run Configuration is simple (3 text fields), and I have it all working, however, after editing the Run Configuration, and click "Apply" or "OK" after changing values, the entered values are lost.
What is the correct way to persist and read-back values (both when the Run Configuration is re-opened as well as when the Run Configuration's Runner invoked)? It looks like I could try to create a custom persistence using [2], however, it seems like the Plugin framework should have a way to handle this already or at least hooks for when Apply/OK is pressed.
[1] https://www.jetbrains.org/intellij/sdk/docs/tutorials/run_configurations.html
[2] https://www.jetbrains.org/intellij/sdk/docs/basics/persisting_state_of_components.html
Hopefully, this post is a bit more clear to those new to IntelliJ plugin development and illustrates how persisting/loading Run Configurations can be achieved. Please read through the code comments as this is where much of the explanation takes place.
Also now that SettingsEditorImpl is my custom implementation of the SettingsEditor abstract class, and likewise, RunConfigurationImpl is my custom implementation of the RunConfigiration abstract class.
The first thing to do is to expose the form fields via custom getters on your SettingsEditorImpl (ie. getHost())
public class SettingsEditorImpl extends SettingsEditor<RunConfigurationImpl> {
private JPanel configurationPanel; // This is the outer-most JPanel
private JTextField hostJTextField;
public SettingsEditorImpl() {
super();
}
#NotNull
#Override
protected JComponent createEditor() {
return configurationPanel;
}
/* Gets the Form fields value */
private String getHost() {
return hostJTextField.getText();
}
/* Copy value FROM your custom runConfiguration back INTO the Form UI; This is to load previously saved values into the Form when it's opened. */
#Override
protected void resetEditorFrom(RunConfigurationImpl runConfiguration) {
hostJTextField.setText(StringUtils.defaultIfBlank(runConfiguration.getHost(), RUN_CONFIGURATION_HOST_DEFAULT));
}
/* Sync the value from the Form UI INTO the RunConfiguration which is what the rest of your code will interact with. This requires a way to set this value on your custom RunConfiguration, ie. RunConfigurationImpl##setHost(host) */
#Override
protected void applyEditorTo(RunConfigurationImpl runConfiguration) throws ConfigurationException {
runConfiguration.setHost(getHost());
}
}
So now, the custom SettingsEditor, which backs the Form UI, is set up to Sync field values In and Out of itself. Remember, the custom RunConfiguration is what is going to actually represent this configuration; the SettingsEditor implementation just represents the FORM (a subtle difference, but important).
Now we need a custom RunConfiguration ...
/* Annotate the class with #State and #Storage, which is used to define how this RunConfiguration's data will be persisted/loaded. */
#State(
name = Constants.PLUGIN_NAME,
storages = {#Storage(Constants.PLUGIN_NAME + "__run-configuration.xml")}
)
public class RunConfigurationImpl extends RunConfigurationBase {
// Its good to 'namespace' keys to your component;
public static final String KEY_HOST = Constants.PLUGIN_NAME + ".host";
private String host;
public RunConfigurationImpl(Project project, ConfigurationFactory factory, String name) {
super(project, factory, name);
}
/* Return an instances of the custom SettingsEditor ... see class defined above */
#NotNull
#Override
public SettingsEditor<? extends RunConfiguration> getConfigurationEditor() {
return new SettingsEditorImpl();
}
/* Return null, else we'll get a Startup/Connection tab in our Run Configuration UI in IntelliJ */
#Nullable
#Override
public SettingsEditor<ConfigurationPerRunnerSettings> getRunnerSettingsEditor(ProgramRunner runner) {
return null;
}
/* This is a pretty cool method. Every time SettingsEditor#applyEditorTo() is changed the values in this class, this method is run and can check/validate any fields! If RuntimeConfigurationException is thrown, the exceptions message is shown at the bottom of the Run Configuration UI in IntelliJ! */
#Override
public void checkConfiguration() throws RuntimeConfigurationException {
if (!StringUtils.startsWithAny(getHost(), "http://", "https://")) {
throw new RuntimeConfigurationException("Invalid host");
}
}
#Nullable
#Override
public RunProfileState getState(#NotNull Executor executor, #NotNull ExecutionEnvironment executionEnvironment) throws ExecutionException {
return null;
}
/* This READS any prior persisted configuration from the State/Storage defined by this classes annotations ... see above.
You must manually read and populate the fields using JDOMExternalizerUtil.readField(..).
This method is invoked at the "right time" by the plugin framework. You dont need to call this.
*/
#Override
public void readExternal(Element element) throws InvalidDataException {
super.readExternal(element);
host = JDOMExternalizerUtil.readField(element, KEY_HOST);
}
/* This WRITES/persists configurations TO the State/Storage defined by this classes annotations ... see above.
You must manually read and populate the fields using JDOMExternalizerUtil.writeField(..).
This method is invoked at the "right time" by the plugin framework. You dont need to call this.
*/
#Override
public void writeExternal(Element element) throws WriteExternalException {
super.writeExternal(element);
JDOMExternalizerUtil.writeField(element, KEY_HOST, host);
}
/* This method is what's used by the rest of the plugin code to access the configured 'host' value. The host field (variable) is written by
1. when writeExternal(..) loads a value from a persisted config.
2. when SettingsEditor#applyEditorTo(..) is called when the Form itself changes.
*/
public String getHost() {
return host;
}
/* This method sets the value, and is primarily used by the custom SettingEditor's SettingsEditor#applyEditorTo(..) method call */
public void setHost(String host) {
this.host = host;
}
}
To read these configuration values elsewhere, say for example a custom ProgramRunner, you would do something like:
final RunConfigurationImpl runConfiguration = (RunConfigurationImpl) executionEnvironment.getRunnerAndConfigurationSettings().getConfiguration();
runConfiguration.getHost(); // Returns the configured host value
See com.intellij.execution.configurations.RunConfigurationBase#readExternal as well as com.intellij.execution.configurations.RunConfigurationBase#loadState and com.intellij.execution.configurations.RunConfigurationBase#writeExternal

Can Spring-Data-Rest handle associations to Resources on other Microservices?

For a new project i'm building a rest api that references resources from a second service. For the sake of client convenience i want to add this association to be serialized as an _embedded entry.
Is this possible at all? i thought about building a fake CrudRepository (facade for a feign client) and manually change all urls for that fake resource with resource processors. would that work?
a little deep dive into the functionality of spring-data-rest:
Data-Rest wraps all Entities into PersistentEntityResource Objects that extend the Resource<T> interface that spring HATEOAS provides. This particular implementation has a list of embedded objects that will be serialized as the _embedded field.
So in theory the solution to my problem should be as simple as implementing a ResourceProcessor<Resource<MyType>> and add my reference object to the embeds.
In practice this aproach has some ugly but solvable issues:
PersistentEntityResource is not generic, so while you can build a ResourceProcessor for it, that processor will by default catch everything. I am not sure what happens when you start using Projections. So that is not a solution.
PersistentEntityResource implements Resource<Object> and as a result can not be cast to Resource<MyType> and vice versa. If you want to to access the embedded field all casts have to be done with PersistentEntityResource.class.cast() and Resource.class.cast().
Overall my solution is simple, effective and not very pretty. I hope Spring-Hateoas gets full fledged HAL support in the future.
Here my ResourceProcessor as a sample:
#Bean
public ResourceProcessor<Resource<MyType>> typeProcessorToAddReference() {
// DO NOT REPLACE WITH LAMBDA!!!
return new ResourceProcessor<>() {
#Override
public Resource<MyType> process(Resource<MyType> resource) {
try {
// XXX all resources here are PersistentEntityResource instances, but they can't be cast normaly
PersistentEntityResource halResource = PersistentEntityResource.class.cast(resource);
List<EmbeddedWrapper> embedded = Lists.newArrayList(halResource.getEmbeddeds());
ReferenceObject reference = spineClient.findReferenceById(resource.getContent().getReferenceId());
embedded.add(embeddedWrappers.wrap(reference, "reference-relation"));
// XXX all resources here are PersistentEntityResource instances, but they can't be cast normaly
resource = Resource.class.cast(PersistentEntityResource.build(halResource.getContent(), halResource.getPersistentEntity())
.withEmbedded(embedded).withLinks(halResource.getLinks()).build());
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Something went wrong", e);
// swallow
}
return resource;
}
};
}
If you would like to work in type safe manner and with links only (addition references to custom controller methods), you can find inspiration in this sample code:
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Bean;
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Configuration;
import org.springframework.hateoas.EntityModel;
import org.springframework.hateoas.server.RepresentationModelProcessor;
import static org.springframework.hateoas.server.mvc.WebMvcLinkBuilder.linkTo;
import static org.springframework.hateoas.server.mvc.WebMvcLinkBuilder.methodOn;
#Configuration
public class MyTypeLinkConfiguration {
public static class MyType {}
#Bean
public RepresentationModelProcessor<EntityModel<MyType>> MyTypeProcessorAddLifecycleLinks(MyTypeLifecycleStates myTypeLifecycleStates) {
// WARNING, no lambda can be passed here, because type is crucial for applying this bean processor.
return new RepresentationModelProcessor<EntityModel<MyType>>() {
#Override
public EntityModel<MyType> process(EntityModel<MyType> resource) {
// add custom export link for single MyType
myTypeLifecycleStates
.listReachableStates(resource.getContent().getState())
.forEach(reachableState -> {
try {
// for each possible next state, generate its relation which will get us to given state
switch (reachableState) {
case DRAFT:
resource.add(linkTo(methodOn(MyTypeLifecycleController.class).requestRework(resource.getContent().getId(), null)).withRel("requestRework"));
break;
case IN_REVIEW:
resource.add(linkTo(methodOn(MyTypeLifecycleController.class).requestReview(resource.getContent().getId(), null)).withRel("requestReview"));
break;
default:
throw new RuntimeException("Link for target state " + reachableState + " is not implemented!");
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
// swallowed
log.error("error while adding lifecycle link for target state " + reachableState + "! ex=" + ex.getMessage(), ex);
}
});
return resource;
}
};
}
}
Note, that myTypeLifecycleStates is autowired "service"/"business logic" bean.

Timers generated from a ListView [duplicate]

I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}
Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.
You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.
I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.
I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.
I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.
Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.
The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.
Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}
A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}
This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .
You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.
Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm
I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}
Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}
Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));
For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function
Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}
Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});
Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");
There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net

A central location for catching throwables of JUnit tests?

I would like to catch any throwable during a Selenium test e.g. in order to make a screenshot. The only solution I could come up with for now is to separately surround the test steps with a try and catch block in every test method as following:
#Test
public void testYouTubeVideo() throws Throwable {
try {
// My test steps go here
} catch (Throwable t) {
captureScreenshots();
throw t;
}
}
I'm sure there is a better solution for this. I would like a higher, more centralized location for this try-catch-makeScreenshot routine, so that my test would be able to include just the test steps again. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
You need to declare a TestRule, probably a TestWatcher or if you want to define the rules more explicitly, ExternalResource. This would look something like:
public class WatchmanTest {
#Rule
public TestRule watchman= new TestWatcher() {
#Override
protected void failed(Description d) {
// take screenshot here
}
};
#Test
public void fails() {
fail();
}
#Test
public void succeeds() {
}
}
The TestWatcher anonymous class can of course be factored out, and just referenced from the test classes.
I solved a similar problem using Spring's AOP. In summary:
Declare the selenium object as a bean
Add an aspect using
#AfterThrowing
The aspect can take the screenshot and save it to a
file with a semirandom generated name.
The aspect also rethrows the exception, with the exception message including the filename so you can look at it afterwards.
I found it more helpful to save the HTML of the page due to flakiness of grabbing screenshots.