I have seen many articles on how to prevent double-clicks (linked to the one I am using). But now how do I test it so make sure it working as expected?
It depends on what exactly you're testing and what technique do you use. E.g., you can use Selenium to click the button several times. Or, if you're more focused on the server side, use httpUnit to submit a form twice.
I would point the form towards a test email or even provide a CC address to test these. By utilizing what was pointed out in the link, or using preventDefault, it should work just fine
Related
I'm using Selenium webdriver (Java).
I need to test the registration form but before submitting, image box (captcha) is appearing but everytime of execution it is going to be changed. I want to know how to get the data from image (captcha).
Anyone can help me?
If the captcha is coming from an environment under your control, you will likely need to implement some sort of method indicating you are in a test environment and have the captcha system return a known value or some indicator of what the expected value is.
If, on the other hand, the captcha is coming from another source out of your control, you are probably our of luck. At that point, you are essentially in the same boat as the spammers who are in a constant arms race to write software that can visually parse a captcha.
UPDATE
I feel the need to add some clarification to the ideas put forth in the question, answer and comments. Essentially you are dealing with one of the following situations (note that when I say 'your', I am referring to you, your company, client, etc):
1) Your form, Your captcha system: If this is the case, your best solution is to work with your developers to add a 'test' mode to your captchas, returning either a known value, or additional information in the page that indicates what the expected value should be. If you are able to make use of a tool, either written by you, or by another, that can successfully 'read' the captcha image, your system is broken. If you can do it in test mode, what is to stop anyone else (spammer, hacker, etc) from bypassing your captcha in exactly the same manner.
2) Your form, 3rd Party captcha system: If this is the case, your best solution is again to see if the system has some 'test' mode that you can make use of. I have no experiance with these systems myself but in general would guess that test methods exist for the major systems out there. A Google search of {Captcha System Name} automated testing should return some good hints as to how to go about testing with the system. If nothing good comes from that, your next bet would be to implement your own, internal, test only, dummy captcha system that works with some known value and make your captcha provider configurable so that you can point to your test system in test/dev/etc and your real system in production.
3) Another Form, Unknown captcha system: I am going to make a leap of faith here and assume this is not your case, but just for completeness I will include it. If this is your case, your not testing anything at all and are simply asking for help bypassing someone else's security mechanisms for your own reasons. If that is the case, please seek your assistance on less scrupulous sites.
Captcha code was introduced in order to prevent from the robot or automation codes. There is no option for automating the Captcha code.
1 . You can give a wait time for the automation, so that the user can enter the captcha code.
2. If the project is in testing url means, you can request your system admin and developer to disable the captcha validation.
May be this can help you, but i din't try on this..
Developers will generate a random value for captcha, and they will convert the value into image as well as they will store the value in session for comparing the entered input is matching with the captcha code.
So If possible, you can take that session value and give as the input.
Suppose I have a web page with several links on it. Also it has few buttons which execute some JavaScript.
So should I create one Java class for testing each of these links and elements or should I test all the links in just one test method and other elements in another one(so ending up with two Scripts).
Is there a another way of gouping these tests.
Thank you.
I have found that writing test cases based on actions is much more useful than writing based on pages.
Obviously, we would love to have everything automated. But realistically, this isn't possible. So we test what is most important...which happens to be: 1. The primary purposes of the product you are testing, and 2. The security of the product.
To make this easier to understand, lets say I have a Checkout page.
If I were to test based on a page, I would make sure every link on the page would work. I would verify that I can type in a new number in the quantity field, and make sure that the page verifies that the credit card number I type in is correct.
This method would somewhat test Security, but beyond that, it would test the UI. What would happen if I clicked on the Checkout button, and I was sent to the right page, but the item I was trying to checkout disappeared? That is a huge problem, but the test based on the page would work.
However, if I were to test based on actions (go to this page, add to cart, type in personal information, and then checkout), now I have made sure that the most important part of your program works, checked security, and even a little UI testing.
All in all, write your testing to do what the average user would do. No normal person is going to sit on the same page, testing out every little feature on that page.
It depends on whether you like to see 1/1 tests passed or 2/2 tests passed.
Testing and Rspec are new to me. Currently I'm using Rspec with Shoulda and Capybara to test my application. It's all fine to test models, controllers, helpers, routing and requests. But what should I exactly test in views? Actually I want to test everything in views, including DOM, but I also don't want to overdone things.
These three things would be a good starting point
Use Capybara to go start at the root of your site, and have it click on links and whatever until it gets to the view you want tested.
Make sure what ever content is supposed to be on the page, is actually showing up on the page. So, if they 'user' went to the Product 1 page, make sure all the Product 1 content is actually there.
If different users see different content, make sure that's working. So, if Admin users see Admin-type buttons, make sure the buttons are they when the user is an Admin, and that aren't when the user isn't.
Those 3 things are a pretty good base. Even the first one is a big win. That will catch any kind of weird view syntax errors you may have accidentally introduced, as the syntax error will fail the test.
At my work we are using RSpec only to do unit testing.
For business testing or behavior testing we are using Cucumber that is much more readable for the business and IT guys.
It's like a contract that you sign with your business or it's like a documentation that you can execute.
Have a look at Cucumber: http://cukes.info/
I use view specs to verify that the view uses the IDs and classes I depend on in my jQuery code.
And to test different versions of the same page. E.g.:
I would not want to create two full request or feature specs to check that a new user sees welcome message A and a returning user welcome message B. Instead I would pick one of the cases, write a request or feature spec for it, and then a additional view spec that tests both cases.
Rails Test Prescriptions might be interesting for you, since it has a chapter dedicated to view testing.
I've written a HIT on mturk asking people for domain suggestions. Is there any way to ensure that the domain has valid syntax at the time of entry or submission?
So it turns out you can embed an iframe within the HIT. This allowed me to embed a form which I could then validate in any way I pleased. It requires the worker to copy the result of the form into the HIT form.
I think to do this the 'proper way' (i.e. no need to copy-paste) you'd need to use an ExternalQuestion. This can be done via either the API (various languages) or the command-line client.
As the question states, I'm trying to figure out how google tracks clicks on search results. When you view the source, you find the following:
<em>Yahoo</em>!
The function rwt is, which is pretty messy:
windows.rwt=function(b,d,e,g,h,f,i,j){
var a=encodeURIComponent||escape,c=b.href.split("#");
b.href=["/url?sa=t\x26source\x3dweb",d?"&oi="+a(d):"",e?"&cad="+a(e):"","&ct=",a(g),"&cd=",a(h),"&url=",a(c[0]).replace(/\+/g,"%2B"),"&ei=7_C2SbqXBMW0-AbU4OWnCw",f?"&usg="+f:"",i,c[1]?"#"+c[1]:""].join("");
b.onmousedown="";
return true};
So it looks like Google is changing the href of the a tag to /url?... which I'm assuming is where their tracking is. From LiveHeaders in Firefox, it looks like this page is redirecting the browser to the original href of the a tag.
Is this correct and is this the best method of tracking clicks on links on your site, such as ads?
It's actually changing the href of the link rather than the window location. It's setting b.href, and b refers to the link itself. This runs in onmousedown, so when you release the mouse and the click is handled you magically get sent to that new href.
Any click tracking pretty much comes down to sending the user to some equivalent of Google's /url?... script, counting the click, and performing a 302 redirect to the real destination.
This javascript href replacement has the advantage of automatically filtering out any robots that don't run scripts. The downside is that it also filters out any real people that have javascript disabled. If, like Google, you just care which link is most popular with your real human users, this works out quite well. The clicks that you do record should be representative of real human traffic, and you can safely ignore the clicks from non-javascript users because they probably have the same preferences anyway.
Most adverts just link straight to the counting URL with no javascript replacement. This means that you definitely count every real click on the link, but you need to worry about filtering out requests from robots, since they'll now see your counting URL too.
Which you prefer really depends on why you want to track the clicks.
I think most people expect ads to click through via some sort of tracking system, so I shouldn't worry too much about following this particular javascript implementation - as much as anything that's probably there to ensure that the user sees the correct link in the browsers status bar, that various other interesting bits of info (search terms, position on the result set at the time, who you are, etc) are sent across (without you realising it) and that the links still work if JavaScript is disabled.
Generally, yes directing the user through some tracking page with the ID of the ad they have clicked on, and possibly some additional indication of where they have come from is sensible - that way you aren't relying on other mechanisms (such as JS event handlers) to track clicks on the links, it's certainly the way most ad systems I've used work.