In the Console tab, I have a long list of error messages that originate from a third party library that I can do nothing about. In the Filter textbox, is there some way to write a filter that excludes only errors that match a filter, rather the other way round? For instance, can I filter out messages that match:
Material-UI: The `InputAdornment` variant infers the variant prop you do not have to provide one.
...and show everything else?
In the filter box, the error that you are getting you just start the filter with -
For example, on one site, they were getting the error ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT to find all errors besides ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT you would just put -ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT
Related
I have a Protractor test that pulls various values from the UI and stores them as variables for comparison with values from a different database.
Now this test needs to run against multiple sites BUT of the 25 maximum data points recorded, some sites only have 22.
Clearly the test fails on those "22" sites since the elements are not present.
What I want to achieve is where there's a "22" site, the tests against the not present elements are ignored and the test proceeds to the end. Conveniently, the "missing" elements are the last ones in the spec.
Crudely speaking...
if element-y is not present end test or if element-y is present continue
Grateful if anyone could advise.
Thanks #sergey. I've modified your example as below....
if (!(await element(by.xpath('//*[#id="root"]/div/div[2]/main/div/div/section[5]/div/div/div[1]/section/div/span')).isPresent())) {
console.warn ('Functions are not present, closing the session')
await browser.close()
I get this error:
if (!(await element(by.xpath('//*[#id="root"]/div/div[2]/main/div/div/section[5]/div/div/div[1]/section/div/span')).isPresent())) {
^^^^^^^
SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier
I've tried using a 'var' instead of the actual element, but get the same result.
Thanks
well the best option that I recall is still pretty dirty... you can do something like this
if (!(await element.isPresent())) {
console.warn('Element not present, closing the session')
await browser.close()
}
And then the rest of test cases will fail as session not found or similar error
The reason you can't do anything better because in protractor you can't do conditional test cases based on a Promise-like condition, if that makes sense...
Is there any way that one can stop the console listing a specific error?
I ask, as since Chrome 63 it displays an error "Found 2 elements with non-unique id" many times in the console, and can make it more difficult to find any errors for any other issues that I am debugging.
Thanks
James
You can type -<text> in the Filter text box to filter out the messages that contain <text>.
In the screenshot below, the message that logged out two to the Console is hidden, because the Filter text box is set to -two.
I am trying to get the price items for performance block storage that are generic (not specific to a certain datacenter). I can see that these have the locationGroupId set to blank or null, but I can't seem to get the objectFilter to work with that, the query returns nothing. If I omit the locationGroupId filter I get a result that contain both location-specific and non-location specific prices.
GET /rest/v3.1/SoftLayer_Product_Package/759/getItemPrices.json?objectMask=mask[locationGroupId,id,categories,item]&objectFilter={"itemPrices":{"categories":{"categoryCode":{"operation":"performance_storage_space"}},"item":{"keyName":{"operation":"$=GBs"}},"locationGroupId":{"operation":"is null"}}}
I am guessing there is something wrong with the object filter, any ideas?
If I filter on locationGroupId 509 it works:
/rest/v3.1/SoftLayer_Product_Package/759/getItemPrices.json?objectMask=mask[locationGroupId,id,categories,item]&objectFilter={"itemPrices":{"categories":{"categoryCode":{"operation":"performance_storage_space"}},"item":{"keyName":{"operation":"$=GBs"}},"locationGroupId":{"operation":509}}}
The reason it the first query didn't work while the second did was that I used the command "curl -sg" to do the request. While that eliminates the need to escape the {}[] characters - it also turns off escaping other characters correctly in the URL - like the space in "is null". Changing that to "is%20null" solves the issue.
I am posting this as the answer as I find it likely for others to encounter this problem.
I want to filter Chrome DevTool's network panel by the method property and text in the URL. For example, if I am searching for the text chromequestion in the URL and only HTTP GET requests (ignore PUT, POST, DELETE, etc).
I am able to filter by text or by method:
I am not able to combine the filter to search by both text and method:
I read the documentation at https://developers.google.com/web/tools/chrome-devtools/network-performance/reference#filters and I am able to filter by multiple properties (.e.g, domain:*.com method:GET). However, I am unable to filter by text and property (e.g., method:GET chromequestion).
Unfortunately, it's not possible to do this currently. I played around in DevTools originally, but couldn't find a way. I later had a look into how the filtering was implemented, and can confirm there's a limitation preventing you from mixing the pre-defined filters and text filters.
Implementation details
This is a bit long but I thought it might be interesting for some to see how it's implemented. I will probably look into improving the implementation, either myself or I'll log it because it's limited.
There's a _parseFilterQuery function that parses the input field and categorises the entries into two arrays. The first is called filters, and it's the pre-defined filtering options, such as method:GET etc. The second is a text array filter, split up by spaces. The parser determines the difference fairly naively, by checking for the occurrence of :, and - at the start (for negation).
Scenario 1
You only input a pre-defined filter, or multiple filters. For each filter, the specific filter function, which looks at the different properties of the request object, is pushed to a network module filters array (this._filters). Later on, for each request, the function is called on it, and a match returns true, otherwise false. This will determine whether the request is shown. There's obviously a requirement for ALL filters to return true for the row to show.
Scenario 2
This is the interesting one, where you input both a pre-defined filter and a bit of text. This covers the Stack Overflow question. The _parseFilterQuery function looks at the text filters first, before the pre-defined ones. In Scenario 1, this was empty, so it was skipped.
We pass each text word to the _createTextFilter, and push each of the resulting filters to the network module filters array. However, the implementation of this is questionable. The only time the actual word passed in is used is to check whether its a negation filter for a bit of text. If the first character is -, it means the user doesn't want to see a request with the following word in the name. For example -icon means don't show any request with that in the name/page. If there is no negation, it simply returns the WHOLE input text as a regular expression, NOT the word passed in. In my case, it returns /method:GET icon/i.
The pre-defined filters are looked at next. In this case, method:GET is pushed.
Finally, it loops over the requests calling each filter on it. However, since the first filter is /method:GET icon/i, it makes ALL other filters redundant because it will NEVER pass. The text filters only apply to name and path, so method:GET in a text filter will be invalid.
We have a test requirement to verify that only the expected fields appear on a page. I can verify this case as: True, the expected fields appear. But I cannot verify that "only" these fields appear. So the condition is something like:
Verify: Except field[id/name]="test" NO (input OR select) element exists.
- The above will tell me that except the field I am expecting there is no other dropdown/text/checkbox/etc on the page. This is a simple usecase; in real world ofcourse a page will have multiple fields hence I need to veirfy that except these [5] fields no other field exists.
Any idea how to do this in IDE only? Or is there any hack possible to get this verified using IDE only?
You posted no code, so I cannot reply with any code!
The approach you could take is count the number of all fields on a page, and count number of field you are interested in. The two should match.