|
On 07/10/2013 11:28 AM, Radhouan BEN
BAHRI wrote:
Hi ,
while exploring the Generator/ Recorder option in the 2.1.0
release , I noticed that the recorder doesn’t take into
consideration the execution time of some actions, exp: ( the
Run time or the build time for a project) and then it gives
an incomplete code .
For me I overcome this issue first by doing a
bot.sleep(3000) but it isn’t a good solution and it waste a
lot of time and then I tried creating a new shell with the
name of the action window , for the build action :
SWTBotShell shell = bot.shell("Build Project");
shell1.activate();
bot.waitUntil(shellCloses(shell));
but it is hard to detect
the exact name of the window , SO is there any solution to
force the action to wait until the previous job is done ?
That's a general issue with UI tests, not related to SWTBot nor to
the recorder itself: as most actions are asynchronous, it's
generally the responsability of the developer to put the necessary
wait conditions and assertions. No recorder can guess what you're
expecting and waiting for, it can only write down what you actually
do.
This is explained on the documentation page for the recorder (
http://wiki.eclipse.org/SWTBot/Recorder#Limitations ).
However, it may be interesting to add to the recorder window some
features to assist people in writing their wait conditions. Please
open a feature request for that. Contributions are hightly welcome
;) http://wiki.eclipse.org/SWTBot/Contributing
I have
another remark ,
The search being recursive creates some problems ,for
example when searching for menu “Project”,
|
SWTbot finds the wrong "Project" menu
item. It finds the one that is located in Search
-> Text . so we must specify the depth : bot.menu("Project", 1);
I think it should be corrected in the next release.
|
From a SWTBot POV, there is no such thing as "wrong" or "good"
widget. So I don't really understand your expectation. Would you
prefer SWTBot to use a wide-first approach instead of a depth-first?
It would make sense, but it might change the behaviour of some
already existing tests, so it would be an API change, which is
something a stable project likes to avoid.
Cheers,
|
