Hey, Thanks Herwig & Mohit.
So, I have one more solution.
Here is the original wait-until function-
(defn wait-until
([pred] (wait/wait-until *driver* (fn [_] pred))) ([pred timeout] (wait/
wait-until *driver* (fn [_] pred) timeout)) ([pred timeout interval] (wait/
wait-until *driver* (fn [_] pred) timeout interval)) ([driver pred timeout
interval] (wait/wait-until driver (fn [d] (pred d)) timeout interval)))
I have converted function to macro like -
(defmacro with-wait-until-error-log
[pred & body]
`(try
~@body
(catch Exception e#
(println "\nWait-until failed for: " ~pred "\n")
e#)))
(defmacro wait-until
[& args]
`(if (= (count '~args) 4)
(let [pred# (nth '~args 1)]
(with-wait-until-error-log
pred#
(wait/wait-until (eval (nth '~args 0))
(fn [_#] (eval pred#))
(nth '~args 2)
(nth '~args 3))))
(let [pred# (first '~args)]
(with-wait-until-error-log
pred#
(wait/wait-until *driver* (fn [_#] (eval pred#))
(nth '~args 1)
(nth '~args 2))))))
So, by this way I am not breaking input format or fn behaviour, but need to
use `eval`. So, is there any other way for doing same as eval? Or, is it OK
to use eval?
On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:55:20 PM UTC+5:30, Mohit Thatte wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, this is nice
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Herwig Hochleitner <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> 2015-05-28 19:42 GMT+02:00 Mohit Thatte <[email protected]
>> <javascript:>>:
>>>
>>> The interesting question here is what constitutes useful information!
>>>
>>
>> (let [pred #(exists? ".foo")]
>> (wait-until pred)) ;; <- the fact that it's called 'pred is not
>> interesting in most cases
>>
>>
>>> The trade-off is breaking an existing public API.
>>>
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> (defmacro op [msg args expr]
>> `(with-meta (fn ~args ~expr) {:msg ~msg :args '~args :expr '~expr}))
>>
>> (let [pred1 #(exists? ".foo")
>> pred2 (op "checks existance" [] (exists? ".foo"))]
>> ;; both these will work, the one with pred1 will give less useful
>> errors. the API of wait-until is unchanged
>> (wait-until pred1)
>> (wait-until pred2))
>>
>> If Shalaka's primary goal is prettier errors in test failures, I'd settle
>>> for the fn body itself as the error message and that could be achieved
>>> without breaking the API.
>>>
>>
>> The op macro can include the code in its information.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>> <javascript:>
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected] <javascript:>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Mohit Thatte
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
