I'm currently modifying a Java script in Rational Functional Tester and I'm trying to tell RFT to wait for an object with a specified set of properties to appear. Specifically, I want to wait until a table with X number of rows appear. The only way I have been able to do it so far is to add a verification point that just verifies that the table has X number of rows, but I have not been able to utilize the wait for object type of VP, so this seems a little bit hacky. Is there a better way to do this?
Jeff
No, there is not a built-in waitForProperty() type of method, so you cannot do something simple like tableObject.waitForProperty("rowCount", x);
Your options are to use a verification point as you already are doing (if it ain't broke...) or to roll your own synchronization point using a do/while loop and the find() method.
The find() codesample below assumes that doc is an html document. Adjust this to be your parent java window.
TestObject[] tables = doc.find(atDescendant(".rowCount", x), false);
If you are not familiar with find(), do a search in the RFT API reference in the help menu. find() will be your best friend in RFT scripting.
You can do one thing.... you can try getting the particular property and check that you are getting the desired value of that. If not then iterate in a IF loop.
while (!flag) {
if (obj.getproperty(".text").equals("Desired Text")) {
flag = true
}
}
You can use:
getobject.gettext();
Related
One common problem we have in our codebase is that people forget to check if a list is empty before using it in an in clause.
For example (in Scala with Anorm):
def exists(element: String, list: List[String]): Boolean =
SQL("select {element} in {list} as result")
.on('element -> element, 'list -> list)
.as(SqlParser.bool("result").single)
This code works perfectly well as long as list has at least one element.
If it has 0 elements, you get a syntax error, which is weird if you're used to other programming languages that would allow this empty list case.
So, my question is: what's the best way to prevent this error from happening?
Initially, we did this:
def exists(element: String, list: List[String]): Boolean =
if (list.nonEmpty) {
SQL("select {element} in {list} as result")
.on('element -> element, 'list -> list)
.as(SqlParser.bool("result").single)
} else {
false
}
This works perfectly well, and has the added advantage that it doesn't hit the database at all.
Unfortunately, we don't remember to do this every time, and it seems that 1-2 times a month we're fixing an issue related to this.
An alternate solution we came up with was to use a NonEmptyList class instead of a standard List. This class must have at least one element. This works excellent, but again, people have not been diligent with always using this class.
So I'm wondering if there's an approach I'm missing that prevent this type of error better?
It looks like you've already found a way to resolve this problem - you have an exists() function which handles an empty list cleanly. The problem is that people are writing their own exists() functions which don't do that.
You need to make sure that your function is accessible as a utility function, so that you can reuse it whenever you need to, rather than having to rewrite the function.
Your problem is an encapsulation problem: the Anorm API is like an open flame and people can burn themselves. If you rely just on people to take precautions, someone will get burnt.
The solution is to restrict the access to the Anorm API to a limited module/package/area of your code:
Anorm API will be private and accessible only from very few places, where it is going to be easy to perform the necessary controls. This part of the code will expose an API
Every other part of the code will need to go through that API, effectively using Anorm in the "safe" way
VERY LONG story short, I'm trying to develop a MS Excel AddIn to allow an uneducated user (open to interpretation) to create Excel-based scripts that Visual Basic (yeah not C#) can essentially parse into the individual pieces and send to the browser via Selenium commands. So far, I've had quite a bit of success. Granted there is a little bit clunkiness, but this is round 1, and I've only been working with Selenium for a week.
Up to this point I have been able to use the CallByName function to call various Selenium methods where each _argument is passed from a higher level handler originating from values in spreadsheet cells.
Dim eleActionElement as Remote.RemoteWebElement = Nothing
eleActionElement = driver.FindeElement(By.Id("PresentObjectID"))
CallByName(eleActionElement, _strAction, CallType.Method, _strActionArg)
Initially I had problems with Bys:
Dim myBy As By = CallByName(By, _strBy, CallType.Method, _strByArg)
Intelisense warns that "By" is a class type and cannot be used as an expression. Fortunately, there are individual methods for each by type, so I have been able to retrieve elements effectively through:
Public Function DriverFindElementBy(_strBy As String, _strByArg As String) As Remote.RemoteWebElement
Dim strElementBy As String = "FindElementBy" & _strBy
Dim eleWebElement As Remote.RemoteWebElement = Nothing
eleWebElement = CallByName(ThisAddIn.driver, strElementBy, CallType.Method, _strByArg)
Return eleWebElement
End Function
Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to get ExpectedConditions to work. My best guess (of many) is:
Public Function WaitOnCondition(_strCondition As String, _strBy As String, _strByArg As String)
Dim myExpectedConditionObj As ExpectedConditions
CallByName(myExpectedConditionObj, _strCondition, CallType.Method)
waitDefault.Until(CallByName(myExpectedConditionObj, _strCondition, CallType.Method))
If strTestResult.Length = 0 Then
Return "Success"
Else
Return strTestResult.ToString
End If
End Function
Intelisense warns this could result in a NullReference and it does. I can see how the object is not instantiated yet, but the same approach worked with the RemoteWebElement. If studied the Selenium docs, and both are class types; so I'm left thinking the problem has to do with various methods of the ExpectedConditions and By classes take and return different numbers and types of arguments. It may be because both classes are delegates. It may be some simple error I'm making - although, I've written and rewritten these functions a dozen times with the recurring thought, "geez, this should work." One of those times you'd think I'd have blindly gotten it right.
I'm certainly not a .Net expert and advanced techniques can be baffling at times, but I do study the solutions people provide on SO and often have to go and expand my skills; so please know that nay help will be appreciate and will not go in vain.
One tiny request, if you give a C# (or Java or Python) explanation, just let me know if you KNOW / DON'T KNOW or AREN'T SURE if it will work in VB. My biggest challenge in advanced topics is that narrow segment of stuff that doesn't crossover between C# and VB.
THANKS in advance!
I'm curious about whether the following functional test is possible. I'm working with PHPUnit_Extensions_SeleniumTestCase with Selenium-RC here, but the principle (I think) should apply everywhere.
Suppose I execute the following command on a particular div:
function testInput() {
$locator = $this->get_magic_locator(); // for the sake of abstraction
$this->type( $locator, "Beatles" ); // Selenium API call
$this->verifyText( $locator, "Beatles" ); // Selenium API call
}
Conceptually, I feel that this test should work. I'm entering data into a particular field, and I simply want to verify that the text now exists as entered.
However, the results of my test (the verifyText assertion fails) suggest that the content of the $locator element are empty, even after input.
There was 1 failure:
1) test::testInput
Failed asserting that <string:> matches PCRE pattern "/Beatles/".`
Has anyone else tried anything like this? Should it work? Am I making a simple mistake?
You should use verifyValue(locator,texttoverify) rather than verifyText(locator,value) for validating the textbox values
To answer your initial question ("Is it meaningful ..."), well, maybe. What you're testing at that point is the browser's ability to respond to keystrokes, which would be sort of lame. Unless you've got some JavaScript code wired to some of the field's properties, in which case it might be sort of important.
Standard programmer's answer - "It depends".
If my class has a non-empty constructor, is it possible to auto-complete parameters in the new expression?
With Eclipse, if you press ctrl+space when the cursor is between the parenthesis:
MyClass myObject = new MyClass();
it will find the appropriate parameters.
--> MyClass myObject = new MyClass(name, value);
When I use ctrl+shift+spacebar after the new, Intellij shows me the constructors, but I can't choose one for auto-completion. Am I missing an option?
I usually start with CtrlP (Parameter Info action) to see what arguments are accepted (auto guess complete is way to error prone in my opinion). And if as in your case you want to fill in name type n a dropdown menu appears with all available variables/fields (etc) starting with n Arrow Up/Down and Tab to select name, or CtrlSpace to select a method (or even CtrlAltSpace to be killed by suggestions;-), followed by , and v Tab for value.
Well I used the eclipse key map where Parameter Info is unassigned.
Here is how to change that:
Well there's the Ctrl+Shift+Space combination, which tries to come up with a set of possible arguments. And if you press the Ctrl+Shift+Space a second time, Idea tries find arguments which fit across multiple calls & conversions.
So in your example Ctrl+Shift+Space would almost certainly bring up the 'name' as suggestion. And the next Ctrl+Shift+Space would bring up 'value' as suggestion.
In Intellij Idea 2016.3 you can use option + return. It will ask you if you want to introduce the named argument for the argument you are on and all the followers.
There's no such possibility yet. As IDEA doesn't fill the arguments automatically, distinguishing the constructors in the lookup makes no sense. There's a request for that (http://youtrack.jetbrains.net/issue/IDEABKL-5496) although I sincerely believe such a behavior is too dangerous and error-prone.
VB.NET has a very handy "with" statement, but it also lets you use it on an unnamed variable, like this:
With New FancyClass()
.Level = "SuperSpiffy"
.Style = Slimming
.Execute()
End With
Is there a way to get at the "hidden" instance, so I can view its properties in the Immediate window? I doubt I'll get it in the watch windows, so immediate is fine.
If you try to access the instance the same way (say, when .Execute() throws an exception) from the Immediate window, you get an error:
? .Style
'With' contexts and statements are not valid in debug windows.
Is there any trick that can be used to get this, or do I have to convert the code to another style? If With functioned more like a Using statement, (e.g. "With v = New FancyClass()") this wouldn't pose a problem.
I know how With is working, what alternatives exist, what the compiler does, etc. I just want to know if this is possible.
As answered, the simple answer is "no".
But isn't another way to do it: instead of declaring and then cleaning up the variable is to use the "Using".
Using fc as new FancyClass()
With fc
.Level = "SuperSpiffy"
.Style = Slimming
.Execute()
End With
End Using
Then you can use fc in the immediate window and don't have to remember to write a
fc=nothing
line.
Just some more thoughts on it ;)
What's wrong with defining a variable on one line and using it in a with-statement on the next? I realise it keeps the variable alive longer but is that so appalling?
Dim x = new SomethingOrOther()
With x
.DoSomething()
End With
x = Nothing ' for the memory conscious
Two extra lines wont kill you =)
Edit: If you're just looking for a yes/no, I'd have to say: No.
I hope there really isn't a way to get at it, since the easy answer is "no", and I haven't found a way yet either. Either way, nothing said so far really has a rationale for being "no", just that no one has =) It's just one of those things you figure the vb debugger team would have put in, considering how classic "with" is =)
Anyway, I know all about usings and Idisposable, I know how to fix the code, as some would call it, but I might not always want to.
As for Using, I don't like implementing IDisposable on my classes just to gain a bit of sugar.
What we really need is a "With var = New FancyClass()", but that might just be confusing!
You're creating a variable either way - in the first case (your example) the compiler is creating an implicit variable that you aren't allowed to really get to, and the in the second case (another answer, by Oli) you'd be creating the variable explicitly.
If you create it explicitly you can use it in the immediate window, and you can explicitly destroy it when you're through with it (I'm one of the memory conscious, I guess!), instead of leaving those clean up details to the magic processes. I don't think there is any way to get at an implicit variable in the immediate window. (and I don't trust the magic processes, either. I never use multiple-dot notation or implicit variables for this reason)