I am Using WaitforComplete() in watiN but it doesnt seems to work well. As it executes the next statement even if you have given longer time to wait. I am using thread.sleep() to stop my application until it gets the desired page or element. But the thing is pages are so much dynamic that sometimes it takes much longer time as specified.
Any better solution. Any thing that will catch the page return dynamically and dont go to execute next statments in application.
Sample of Code
'Show Details page
Assert.AreEqual("Confirmation", _internetExplorer.Title)
If (_internetExplorer.Button(Find.ById(New Regex("btnFinish"))).Exists) Then
_internetExplorer.Button(Find.ById(New Regex("btnFinish"))).Click()
Else
Assert.Fail("Could not Find Finish Booking Button on Confirmation Page")
End If
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100000)
'Show Booking Summary page
Assert.AreEqual("Display Booking", _internetExplorer.Title)
I want something that detect the return of page dynamically. instead of giving some constant value.
WaitForComplete only works well if there is a postback after some action. Otherwise you have to find something else to wait for. Following an example on how to wait for the specified title:
_internetExplorer.Element("title", "Confirmation").WaitUntilExists();
I would always prefer to use one of the WaitXXX methods instead of Thread.Sleep cause the WaitXXX methods do only wait until the contraint is met. Where as Sleep waits for the time you specified. If its to long, time is waisted. If its to short, problems arise.
HTH,
Jeroen
The WaitForComplete method esentially moves on once the browser has set it's readystate to comllete and the busy state to false.
What I typically do is to try and access what you need to, then perform a thread.sleep for say half a second, then try again. I also have a global timeout that quits after say 10 seconds.
int timeout = 20;
bool controlFound = false;
for (int i = 0; i < timeout; i++)
{
if (_internetExplorer.Button(Find.ById(New Regex("btnFinish"))).Exists)
{
_internetExplorer.Button(Find.ById(New Regex("btnFinish"))).Click();
controlFound = true;
break;
}
else
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
if (!controlFound)
{
Assert.Fail("Control not found");
}
If it is executing the next statement, it should be finding the corresponding element. I suggest posting a sample of the code you are trying.
Related
This is my Block which contain an element.element(by.model("$ctrl.benchmark.name"));
This is not present on Dom. It give me error that element is not on page but still execute all lines of code written after it. I want this to handle in sequential way if above passes then go to next only. How can I handle these types of problem in Protractor.
it("Test BenchMark",function(){
browser.getTitle().then(function (name) {
console.log(name);
browser.sleep(2000);
element(by.linkText("Manage Benchmarks")).click();
browser.sleep(4000)
//element(by.xpath("//main[#class='ng-scope']//a[text()='Create Benchmark']")).click();
console.log("megha");
element(by.model("$ctrl.benchmark.name")).sendKeys("bench");
element(by.buttonText("Save")).click();
console.log(megha);
element(by.xpath("//button[#class='dropdown-toggle']")).click();
console.log("dropdown clicked")
});
The behavior which you are expecting will not be handled by Protractor, it will be by testing framework(ex: Jasmine). But
"Jasmine doesn't support failing early, in a single spec. The idea is to give
you all of the failures in case that helps figure out what is really wrong
in your spec"
You can use browser.wait() combined with Expected Conditions.
browser.wait() blocks control flow execution until a promise is resolved, and Expected Conditions all evaluate to a promise.
So in your case, you could use either presenceOf() and/or visibilityOf().
var EC = protractor.ExpectedConditions;
var el = element(by.model("$ctrl.benchmark.name"));
var present = EC.presenceOf(el); // wait for it to be added to DOM
var visible = EC.visibilityOf(el); // wait for it to be visible on page
browser.wait(EC.and(present, visible), 10000); // wait maximum of 10 seconds
// rest of code
In my application I need to wait until external program (using QProcess) is finished. I want to keep the application responsible so blocking methods are unacceptable.
Also I need to disallow user input. I've tried to make QEventLoop and exec it with QEventLoop::ExcludeUserInputEvents flag, but as documentation says it only delays an event handling:
the events are not discarded; they will be delivered the next time processEvents() is called without the ExcludeUserInputEvents flag.
So I implemented simple event filter and install it on qApp (the idea is took from Qt Application: Simulating modal behaviour (enable/disable user input)). It works well, but sometimes QApplication::processEvents function never returns even if I specify the maximum timeout. Could anyone help me to understand for what reasons it periodically happens?
class UserInputEater : public QObject
{
public:
bool eventFilter(QObject *object, QEvent *event)
{
switch(event->type())
{
case QEvent::UpdateRequest:
case QEvent::UpdateLater:
case QEvent::Paint:
return QObject::eventFilter(object, event);
default:
return true;
}
}
};
-
UserInputEater eventEater;
qApp->installEventFilter(&eventEater);
QProcess prc;
prc.start("...");
while(!prc.waitForFinished(10))
{
if(qApp->hasPendingEvents())
{
// Sometimes it never returns from processEvents
qApp->processEvents(QEventLoop::AllEvents, 100);
}
}
qApp->removeEventFilter(&eventEater);
UPD: Seems like it depends of the timeout value for QProcess::waitForFinished.
I guess you are filtering some useful events (for example, QEvent::SockAct could be involved). Try to add some debug output and find out which event types you're actually filtering. Or it might be better to specify the black list of events you want to block instead of white list of events you want to allow. See this answer.
Also you shouldn't use return QObject::eventFilter(object, event);. You should use return false. All other event filters will be called automatically.
This solution however seems weird and unreasonable to me because you can just call setEnabled(false) for your top level widget to block user input, and then you can use QApplication::processEvents without any flags.
I am wanting to know a button is rendered on main window UI or not. This button rendering is depending on server response result (written in Objective C). If server response comes perfectly it becomes render perfectly (VISIBLE) otherwise it is not present there (INVISIBLE). And whenever it becomes visible I always tap on it for further next process.
I wrote code
UIATarget.localTarget().pushTimeout(200);
//My code
UIATarget.localTarget().popTimeout();
By the above code I have to wait till 200 sec but my concern is I want to wait but whenever object is on screen I don't want keep me busy in WAITING MODE.
How will I write code in automation?
Thanks
Ok, this might give you idea how to follow-up:
For your view implement an accessibilityValue method which returns a JSON formatted value:
- (NSString *)accessibilityValue
{
return [NSString stringWithFormat:
#"{'MyButtonisVisible':%#}",
self.MyButton.isHidden ? #"false" : #"true"];
}
Then somehow you can access it from your test javascript:
var thisproperty = eval("(" + element.value() + ")");
if (thisproperty.MyButtonisVisible) {
UIATarget.localTarget().tap({"x":100, "y":100});
}
Hope that helps.
If you make the name different when you enable the button you can do this:
var awesomeButton = target.frontMostApp().mainWindow().buttons()[0];
UIATarget.localTarget().pushTimeout(200);
awesomeButton.withName("My Awesome Button");
if (awesomeButton.isVisible()) {
UIALogger.logError("Error no awesome button!");
}
UIATarget.localTarget().popTimeout();
withName will repeatedly test the name and control will return to your script once the name matches or when the time out is reached.
Per Apple's Doc
withName:
Tests if the name attribute of the element has the given string value. If the match fails, the test is retried until the current timeout expires.
Timeout Periods:
If the action completes during the timeout period, that line of code returns, and your script can proceed. If the action doesn’t complete during the timeout period, an exception is thrown.
https://developer.apple.com/library/etc/redirect/xcode/ios/e808aa/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/InstrumentsUserGuide/UsingtheAutomationInstrument/UsingtheAutomationInstrument.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004652-CH20
I am using Galasoft MVVMLight. I have a button bound to a command which sends a message to the view to display a messagebox asking for confirmation. If I click either the Yes or No on the messagebox it performs the necessary actions then shows up again. However if I step through the program instead I only get the messagebox once. Is this a bug or is something else going on?
EDIT: I modified the messagebox.show line by adding an Icon and default result and now I can't reproduce this behavior... I'm stumped... if it happens again I'll try a counter like airplaneman19 suggested.
Try tracking the amount of times the MessageBox shows up with an integer, like so:
int counter = 0;
if(counter == 0){
MessageBox.Show();
counter++;
}
else if (counter == 1)
/*Do something that won't alter the program just to escape the if....else statement
like "x++";
I had a similar problem once, I mean, with MessageBox firing twice. It was due to focus changes, and ListView in WinForms fired another selection changed event when running the app; but when debugging - some focus change was missing, and there was no bug :)
I hope this atleast gives you some ideas...
It's been a while since I used GTK+, and the last time I did was in C, not using gtkmm and C++ as I am now. Anyway, I have what I think should be an easy problem to solve:
I have a pop-up menu consisting of a list of radio buttons, and when I click one of them I want some action to occur. The code goes like this:
Gtk::RadioMenuItem::Group group;
for ( size_t i = 1; i < LH_MAX; ++i )
{
Gtk::RadioMenuItem* pItem = new Gtk::RadioMenuItem( group, names[i], names[i] );
pItem->set_name( names[i] );
pItem->signal_activate().connect( sigc::mem_fun(*this, &MyClass::on_item_activated) );
pItem->show();
m_Menu.append( *Gtk::manage(pItem) );
}
The only problem I see is that MyClass::on_item_activated gets called twice when a previously-unselected radio button is chosen from the menu. It's called only once when the already-selected radio button is clicked.
I'm guessing that the first firing is to say "something is no longer activate," and the second is for the new radio button activation. Whether I'm right or wrong, the question is the same: how best can I have my handler only take action once per click? Either I need the handler to get called only once, or I need something to check from inside it to know if the callback is a "duplicate" or not.
You could use sigc::bind to supply the item as a argument to the callback function.
pItem->signal_activate().sigc::bind(sigc::mem_fun(*this,&MyClass::on_item_activated),pItem));
Then you can use item->get_active() in the callback to respond to activations only.
void MyClass::on_item_activated(Gtk::RadioMenuItem* item) {
if (item->get_active()) {
// Do some stuff
}
}
That's what I do too, connect to signal_toggled() and check if get_active() is true.
I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish (or what MyClass is and what base classes it inherits from), but connecting to signal_toggled() might be more useful than signal_activate()
/Agree with Johannes. Check if the item is activated when receiving the signal.