I am wondering if it's possible to use PageObject::PageFactory without cucumber. I tried it with
World(PageObject::PageFactory)
but there is no world without cucumber. I'm not able to find an example of another way.
Why would I do something that crazy? I want to create a gem that can downloaded by testers to use against a product that we test. I love cukes but I'd also like it to be used for exploratory testing. I've been successful doing this on the rest endpoints.
I know I can do this without PageFactory, but it's so easy that to use PageObject that way that feels like I'm cheating. I want to use these patterns.
visit(NewAccountPage)
on(NewAccountPage).create_account
Maybe there is another way entirely?
Yes, you can. There are 2 things you need to do:
Include the PageObject::PageFactory in the object that you want to use the visit, on, etc methods. (This is what Cucumber's World method is doing.)
Define a #browser variable for the Watir::Browser object.
Here is an example of using the PageFactory in the main:
require 'watir-webdriver'
require 'page-object'
# A page object
class GooglePage
include PageObject
page_url 'http://www.google.com'
end
# Including the page factory methods in the main
include PageObject::PageFactory
# Assign a browser to #browser
#browser = Watir::Browser.new :chrome
# Using the page factory
visit(GooglePage)
p on(GooglePage).current_url
#=> "https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=UxfbVdnCAaeD8QeM96CACg&gws_rd=ssl"
Related
I have a large Catalyst app and want to get a list of all endpoints it supports (bonus points if it can tell me if the request method). Is there some easy way to ask Catalyst to list them?
Catalyst does not know the full set of paths. The true dispatch paths are resolved dynamically, iterating through DispatchType classes until one responds favourably to a call of match.
The debug option does a one-time enumeration of all possibilities that your controllers allow. If you want to interfere with this, you have to look at Catalyst::Dispatcher::_display_action_tables
It's a tree-walking algorithm that iterates through each route it finds at '/' and follows each subsequent route that $controller->actions returns. It's not easy to read, but you could conceivably implement a version of _display_action_tables that doesn't just print to a table, but does something else instead. Then call it in the live application with $c as argument and see what happens!
I'm doing some competitions on a website called topcoder.com where the objective is to solve algorithmic problems. I'm using Eclipse for this purpose, and I code in Java, it would be help me to have some predefined templates or macros that I can use for common coding tasks. For example I would like to write methods to be able to find the max value in and int[] array, or the longest sequence in an int[] array, and so on (there should be quite many of these). Note I can't write these methods as libraries because as part of the competition I need to submit everything in one file.
Therefore ideally, I would like to have some shortcut available to generate code both as a method and as a calling statement at once. Any ideas if this is possible?
Sure you can - I think that's a nifty way to auto-insert boilerplate or helper code. To the point of commenters, you probably want to group the code as a helper class, but the general idea sounds good to me:
You can see it listed in your available templates:
Then as you code your solution, you can Control+Space, type the first few characters of the name you gave your template, and you can preview it:
And then you can insert it. Be sure if you use a class structure to position it as an inner class:
Lastly - if you want to have a template inserts a call to method from a template, I think you would just use two templates. One like shown above (to print the helper code) and another that might look like this, which calls a util method and drops the cursor after it (or between the parentheses if you'd like, etc):
MyUtils.myUtilMethod1();${cursor}
I find a module, that I want to change.
My problem have some features like this:
I want to add functionality and flexibility to this module.
Now this module solves tasks, but web-service, for what it was written, change API
And also, I want to use code of this module.
It is not my module
Fix some bugs
How i should be in this situation?
Inheriting from this module and add functionality and upload to CPAN?
Ask author about my modifications (and reload module)?
Something else?
There are various ways to modify a module as you use it, and I cover most of them in Mastering Perl.
As Dave Cross mentions, send fixes upstream or become part of that project. It sounds like you have the ambition to be a significant contributor. :)
Create a subclass to replace methods
Override or overload subroutines or methods
Wrap subroutines to modify or adapt either inputs or outputs (e.g. Hook::LexWrap)
Create a locally patched version, and store it separately from the main code so it doesn't disappear in an upgrade
For example, this is something I often do directly in program code while I wait for an upstream fix:
use Some::Module; # load the original first
BEGIN {
package Some::Module;
no warnings 'redefine';
if( $VERSION > 1.23 and $VERSION < 1.45 ) {
*broken = sub { ... fixed version ... };
}
}
This way, I have the fix even if the target module is upgraded.
I think that your a and b options are pretty much the best approach - although I'd probably do them the other way round.
Approach the module author with your suggestions. Read the module
documentation to find out how the author likes to be contacted. Some
like email, some like RT, other have more specific methods.
Authors tend to like suggestions better if they come with tests for
the new/changed code and patches that can be applied freely. Perhaps
the code is on Github. Can you fork it, make your changes and send
the author a pull request?
If the author is unresponsive, then consider either forking or
subclassing their code. In this case, naming is important as you
want people to be able to find your module as well as the original
one. You'll also want to carefully document the differences between
your version and the original one so that people can choose which
one they want.
I've done some searching on this, but I cannot find info. I'm building an application inside sinatra, and using the coffeescript templating engine. By default the compiled code is wrapped as such:
(function() {
// code
}).call(this);
I'd like to remove that using the --bare flag, so different files can access classes and so forth that I'm defining. I realize that having it more contained helps against variable conflicts and so forth, but I'm working on two main pieces here. One is the business logic, and arrangement of data in class structures. The other is the view functionality using raphaeljs. I would prefer to keep these two pieces in separate files. Since the two files wrapped as such cannot access the data, it obviously won't work. However, if you can think of a better solution than using the --bare option, I'm all ears.
Bare compilation is simply a bad practice. Each file should export to the global scope only the public objects that matter to the rest of your app.
# foo.coffee
class Foo
constructor: (#abc) ->
privateVar = 123
window.Foo = Foo # export
Foo is now globally available. Now if that pattern isn't practical, maybe you should rethink your structure a bit. If you have to export too may things, you nest and namespace things better, so that more data can be exposed through fewer global variables.
I support Alex's answer, but if you absolutely must do this, I believe my answer to the same question for Rails 3.1 is applicable here as well: Put the line
Tilt::CoffeeScriptTemplate.default_bare = true
somewhere in your application.
Just installed rails 3.1 rc1 and am trying to grok the best way to manage javascript with the new asset pipeline
By default all coffeescript is compiled into a single application.js file, this is a good thing.
Each seperate coffee script file is appended to the js file and wrapped in an anonymous function which is executed via the call method
A common scenario would be to use some jquery to turn various forms into ajax forms, update UI, etc...
Many of these scripts will be specific to a controller or action, I am trying to grok the 'conventional' way to handle this,
since everything is wrapped in an anonymous function how do I only execute just
the code for a particular controller / action, by default all of the anonymous functions are being executed
I did play around with some hacks where I load the controller and action name into js variables and then in
coffeescript check those to conditionally run code, I don't like that very much
my initial thought was that each coffee file would contain a js namespace/object and I would call the specific ones from the view,
going to spike this using the default_bare = true configuration
see How can I use option "--bare" in Rails 3.1 for CoffeeScript?
EDIT
Looking around some more: this looks like it might be the correct approach - "Can't find variable" error with Rails 3.1 and Coffeescript
There are two common approaches:
Make behavior conditional on the presence of a particular element. For instance, code to run a signup sheet should be prefaced with something like
if $('#signup').length > 0
Make behavior conditional on a class on the body element. You can set the body class using ERB. This is often desirable for stylesheets as well. The code would be something like
if $('body').hasClass 'user'
gistyle is a simple gem that helps you running action-specific javascript codes.
By following its setup, you set some data attributes in your body element, representing the current controller and action names. Then it will only call that action when the corresponding view is loaded.