When I'm coding a form I find myself doing some very repetitive typing. For example, if I'm lining up a number of <input>s in a table, I might write
<tr>
<td><label for="repeat">Repeat:</label></td>
<td><input id="repeat" name="repeat"></td>
</tr>
where the third "repeat" is needed for GET/PUT form submission, the first and third are associated with each other, the third is for DOM access, and the second is for the (human) reader.
If I avoid lining up the various inputs the need for the first goes away:
<p><label>Repeat: <input id="repeat" name="repeat"></label></p>
but usually I'm asked to make them line up.
Generally, I think of duplications in code (DRY) as a bad thing, so even minor as this is I thought I'd ask to see if there was a better way. As it stands, I have four opportunities for typos, three of which are user-facing and two which would cause programmatic issues if mistyped.
How about lining up using CSS (width or something) and keep using your code instead of tables and tds.
Well, obviously you are right about the wordiness of html, which doesn't always conform with the DRY-principle. And the next repetition comes in the server side code, that processes the form. But, as you put it correctly, each of these "repetitions" has its own meaning and could as well contain a different string.
Usually I try to take DRY to a higher level by not coding html forms by hand but using a web framework (in my case Django) which generates the html form automatically. That makes your question to a non-issue for me.
Related
this has previously been asked here (http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-11135) with no response from Zend so really it has to come down to popular or majority decision.
The reason I am asking is because the company that I work for are increasing in size and having a standard style is obviously a sensible approach.
One example that is ignored from the example linked above is multiple methods per line, I.e
$this->setAction()->setMethod()->etc()
->etc()->andSoForth();
Which assists in the compliance of line length.
So whats your personal opinion?
Method chaining can get a little hard to follow on long lines, but if you add a return before each method call then it is perfectly readable and saves repetitively typing the class variable.
Regarding the question asked at http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-11135 - the first and second code examples are identical - should they be showing a difference?
Help! In carefully stepping through irb to control a browser (Firefox and Chrome) using the Watir library, it seems the xpath addresses are too shifty to rely on. Eg. one moment, the xpath for one's balance seems consistent, so I use that address in my script. Sometimes it works, but too often crashing with "element not found" although every time I manually step through, the webpage data is there (firebug inspect to confirm).
Yes, using Ajax-reliant sites, but not that changing....bank websites that pretty much remain the same across visits.
So question....is there some way watir-webdriver can simply give me a long, verbose dump of everything it sees in the DOM at the moment, in the form of an xpath tree? Would help me troubleshoot.
The big answer is to not use xpath, but instead use watir as the UI is intended to be used.
When it comes to a means to specify elements in browser automation, by and large Xpath is evil, it is SLOW, the code it creates is often (as you are finding) very very brittle, and it's nearly impossible to read and make sense of. Use it only as a means of last resort when nothing else will work.
If you are using a Watir API (as with Watir or Watir-webdriver) then you want to identify the element based on it's own attributes, such as class, name, id, text, etc If that doesn't work, then identify based on the closest container that wraps the element which has a way to find it uniquely. If that doesn't work identify by a sibling or sub-element and use the .parent method as a way to walk 'up' the dom to the 'parent container element.
To the point of being brittle and difficult readability, compare the following taken from the comments and consider the code using element_by_xpath on this:
/html/body/form/div[6]/div/table/tbody/tr[2]/td[2]/table/tbody/tr[2]/td/p/table[2]/tbody/tr/td[2]/p/table/tbody/tr[3]/td[2]
and then compare to this (where the entire code is shorter than just the xpath alone)
browser.cell(:text => "Total Funds Avail. for Trading").parent.cell(:index => 1).text
or to be a bit less brittle replace index by some attribute of the cell who's text you want
browser.cell(:text => "Total Funds Avail. for Trading").parent.cell(:class => "balanceSnapShotCellRight").text
The xpath example is very difficult to make any sense of, no idea what element you are after or why the code might be selecting that element. And since there are so many index values, any change to the page design or just extra rows in the table above the one you want will break that code.
The second is much easier to make sense of, I can tell just by reading it what the script is trying to find on the page, and how it is locating it. Extra rows in the table, or other changes to page layout will not break the code. (with the exception of re-arranging the columns in the table, and even that could be avoided if I was to make use of class or some other characteristic of the target cell (as did an example in the comments below)
For that matter, if the use of the class is unique to that element on the page then
browser.cell(:class => 'balanceSnapShotCellRight').text
Would work just fine as long as there is only one cell with that class in the table.
Now to be fair I know there are ways to use xpath more elegantly to do something similar to what we are doing in the Watir code above, but while this is true, it's still not as easy to read and work with, and is not how most people commonly (mis)use xpath to select objects, especially if they have used recorders that create brittle cryptic xpath code similar to the sample above)
The answers to this SO question describe the three basic approaches to identifying elements in Watir. Each answer covers an approach, which one you would use depends on what works best in a given situation.
If you are finding a challenge on a given page, start a question here about it and include a sample of the HTML before/after/around the element you are trying to work with, and the folks here can generally point you the way.
If you've not done so, work through some of the tutorials in the Watir wiki, notice how seldom xpath is used.
Lastly, you mention Firewatir. Don't use Firewatir, it's out of date and no longer being developed and will not work with any recent version of FF. Instead use Watir-Webdriver to driver Firefox or Chrome (or IE).
You just need to output the "innerXml" (I don't know Watir) of the node selected by this XPath expression:
/
Update:
In case that by "dump" you mean something different, such as a set of the XPath expressions each selecting a node, then have a look at the answer of this question:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/4747858/36305
This is a general design question not relating to any language. I'm a bit torn between going for minimum code or optimum organization.
I'll use my current project as an example. I have a bunch of tabs on a form that perform different functions. Lets say Tab 1 reads in a file with a specific layout, tab 2 exports a file to a specific location, etc. The problem I'm running into now is that I need these tabs to do something slightly different based on the contents of a variable. If it contains a 1 I may need to use Layout A and perform some extra concatenation, if it contains a 2 I may need to use Layout B and do no concatenation but add two integer fields, etc. There could be 10+ codes that I will be looking at.
Is it more preferable to create an individual path for each code early on, or attempt to create a single path that branches out only when absolutely required.
Creating an individual path for each code would allow my code to be extremely easy to follow at a glance, which in turn will help me out later on down the road when debugging or making changes. The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same.
Creating a single path that would branch out only when required will be a bit messier and more difficult to follow at a glance, but I would create less code by placing conditionals only at steps that are unique.
I realize that this may be a case-by-case decision, but in general, if you were handed a previously built program to work on, which would you prefer?
Edit: I've drawn some simple images to help express it. Codes 1/2/3 are the variables and the lines under them represent the paths they would take. All of these steps need to be performed in a linear chronological fashion, so there would be a function to essentially just call other functions in the proper order.
Different Paths
Single Path
Creating a single path that would
branch out only when required will be
a bit messier and more difficult to
follow at a glance, but I would create
less code by placing conditionals only
at steps that are unique.
Im not buying this statement. There is a level of finesse when deciding when to write new functions. Functions should be as simple and reusable as possible (but no simpler). The correct answer is almost never 'one big file that does a lot of branching'.
Less LOC (lines of code) should not be the goal. Readability and maintainability should be the goal. When you create functions, the names should be self documenting. If you have a large block of code, it is good to do something like
function doSomethingComplicated() {
stepOne();
stepTwo();
// and so on
}
where the function names are self documenting. Not only will the code be more readable, you will make it easier to unit test each segment of the code in isolation.
For the case where you will have a lot of methods that call the same exact methods, you can use good OO design and design patterns to minimize the number of functions that do the same thing. This is in reference to your statement "The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same."
The biggest danger in starting with one big block of code is that it will never actually get refactored into smaller units. Just start down the right path to begin with....
EDIT --
for your picture, I would create a base-class with all of the common methods that are used. The base class would be abstract, with an abstract method. Subclasses would implement the abstract method and use the common functions they need. Of course, replace 'abstract' with whatever your language of choice provides.
You should always err on the side of generalization, with the only exception being early prototyping (where throughput of generating working stuff is majorly impacted by designing correct abstractions/generalizations). having said that, you should NEVER leave that mess of non-generalized cloned branches past the early prototype stage, as it leads to messy hard to maintain code (if you are doing almost the same thing 3 different times, and need to change that thing, you're almost sure to forget to change 1 out of 3).
Again it's hard to specifically answer such an open ended question, but I believe you don't have to sacrifice one for the other.
OOP techniques solves this issue by allowing you to encapsulate the reusable portions of your code and generate child classes to handle object specific behaviors.
Personally I think you might (if possible by your API) create inherited forms, create them on fly on master form (with tabs), pass agruments and embed in tab container.
When to inherit form and when to decide to use arguments (code) to show/hide/add/remove functionality is up to you, yet master form should contain only decisions and argument passing and embeddable forms just plain functionality - this way you can separate organisation from implementation.
Is there a built-in way to get at POST/GET parameters in Racket? extract-binding and friends do what I want, but there's a dire note attached about potential security risks related to file uploads which concludes
Therefore, we recommend against their
use, but they are provided for
compatibility with old code.
The best I can figure is (and forgive me in advance)
(bytes->string/utf-8 (binding:form-value (bindings-assq (string->bytes/utf-8 "[field_name_here]") (request-bindings/raw req))))
but that seems unnecessarily complicated (and it seems like it would suffer from some of the same bugs documented in the Bindings section).
Is there a more-or-less standard, non-buggy way to get the value of a POST/GET-variable, given a field name and request? Or better yet, a way of getting back a collection of the POST/GET values as a list/hash/a-list? Barring either of those, is there a function that would do the same, but only for POST variables, ignoring GETs?
extract-binding is bad because it is case-insensitive, is very messy for inputs that return multiple times, doesn't have a way of dealing with file uploads, and automatically assumes everything is UTF-8, which isn't necessarily true. If you can accept those problems, feel free to use it.
The snippet you wrote works when the data is UTF-8 and when there is only one field return. You can define it is a function and avoid writing it many times.
In general, I recommend using formlets to deal with forms and their values.
Now your questions...
"Is there a more-or-less standard, non-buggy way to get the value of a POST/GET-variable, given a field name and request?"
What you have is the standard thing, although you wrongly assume that there is only one value. When there are multiple, you'll want to filter the bindings on the field name. Similarly, you don't need to turn the value into a string, you can leave it as bytes just fine.
"Or better yet, a way of getting back a collection of the POST/GET values as a list/hash/a-list?"
That's what request-bindings/raw does. It is a list of binding? objects. It doesn't make sense to turn it into a hash due to multiple value returns.
"Barring either of those, is there a function that would do the same, but only for POST variables, ignoring GETs?"
The Web server hides the difference between POSTs and GETs from you. You can inspect uri and raw post data to recover them, but you'd have to parse them yourself. I don't recommend it.
Jay
what it better practices for creating web forms, using tables or lists ?
Regards
Javi
Neither.
A form is just a form. It might consist of paragraphs, simple blocks (divs), or something else.
Sometimes that forms are tabular or lists, but not often.
There is no such a rule :-) You should use tables for tabular content, you shouldn't use it for you page layout since it's a bad html practice.
You'll find a lot about it on google. Tables vs DIV
It depends on your context. If we're speaking about web forms with labels and input fields, then having a structure using divs is most comfortable for a concept of composition
<div>
<label... for="..">
<input type="text"...>
</div>
<subcontrol...>
<div>
<label... for="..">
<input type="text"...>
</div>
This is then properly formatted by using CSS s.t. the things are well aligned in the form
Label: input field
Label2: input field
Composition therefore because as you see in the "HTML" above "subcontrol" may be an arbitrary reference to a control containing again the same div structure and the finally produced page would just look nicely.
The same may apply to tables, but the concept of composition already gets messier since you get nested tables as the result. Moreover some screenreaders often have problems with those nested tables (as many argue, have never tried it though).
Conclusion: It really depends on how you're accustomed to it. Personally I prefer divs and CSS because you can control it better once you have defined your overall layout.