Repository navigation
More love for the bare-ui-test users #88
Description
Because our MVC solution is very big and we don't use the standard model-view approach we can test our ui more or less only in the classic way.
The good news is that Seleno has pretty good support for this use-case but some functions are missing.
For example the Input() method on the generic Page<...> object offers things I would really like use in the non-generic version.
For that I created an extension for the IExecutor interface.
I will left it here for review, plrease tell me if my approach is correct or if that stuff already exists (and I'm blind).
Thanks
public static class ExecutorExtensions
{
public static void SetValue(this IExecutor executor, By.jQueryBy by, string value)
{
executor.ExecuteScript(string.Format("${0}.val('{1}');", by.Selector, value));
}
public static void SetText(this IExecutor executor, By.jQueryBy by, string value)
{
executor.ExecuteScript(string.Format("${0}.text('{1}');", by.Selector, value));
}
public static void SetAttribute(this IExecutor executor, By.jQueryBy by, string name, string value)
{
executor.ExecuteScript(string.Format("${0}.attr('{1}', '{2}');", by.Selector, name, value));
}
}
Activity
robdmoore commentedon Aug 15, 2013
There is the new HtmlControls stuff via the HtmlControlFor() method on page objects allows you to set values for individual fields easily.
That's only part of the solution though, I agree that what you are suggesting is worth us looking at.
I think this relates to #4 a little bit.
SeriousM commentedon Aug 15, 2013
After I looked into
HtmlControlFor<>(string controlId)I found out that it could be very useful but # what iscontrolIdfor (its not a selector!)?@ #4 I don't think it is related to that.
Cheers
robdmoore commentedon Aug 18, 2013
It's the id attribute of the control. I agree it's probably a little inconsistent with the other functionality in Seleno so a good area for us to improve on.
It's related to #4 in that one of the implications for this is the ability to more easily set individual fields (except in this case by a selector rather than a model property); presumable the same mechanism can be used for both.
It also probably relates to the new HtmlControlFor functionality that might be able to provide that base functionality (with the aformentioned tweaks).
@mwhelan / @MehdiK any thoughts?
SeriousM commentedon Aug 18, 2013
It is very inconsistent. Can we get a fix for that please?
robdmoore commentedon Dec 20, 2013
The requirement to have
InputandReadon thePageobject as well asPage<TModel>is captured in #20.The HTML Control stuff in the meantime gives sufficient functionality. I've created #134 to deal with the request about the inconsistency of the
controlIdas well as some other problems I see.Thanks for reporting this!