I'm all for consolidation of PageObjects - it will definitely make the
browser tests easier to maintain and extend over time!
- Jeff
On 1/14/14, 3:04 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
I noticed this when writing tests for lead photo uploads where I had
to create a LeadPhotoPage (to represent a page which has no lead
photo)... [1]
I agree we should only use page exists but use more generic names
e.g. instead of Barack Obama article
PageWithInfobox
or PageWithMultipleSections etc..
[1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/105106
~ Be strong. Not bold. Bold has taken a new semantic meaning and it is
time for change.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Juliusz Gonera <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if we need that many PageObjects in mobile browser tests. In
my opinion we should only have PageObjects for pages that actually exist,
such as:
* HomePage (or MainPage)
* ArticlePage
* UploadsPage
* etc.
There are a bunch of PageObjects that don't actually represent pages, but
kind of mirror features:
* CreateArticlePage
* EditPage
* LanguagePage
* NotificationPage
* RandomPage
I think all the elements from those page objects belong to the ArticlePage.
Furthermore, to avoid repeating things that are shared everywhere (e.g.
notifications icon), we could have a BasePage from which all the other page
objects could inherit. What do you think? I can work on refactoring this if
you agree.
--
Juliusz
_______________________________________________
QA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
_______________________________________________
QA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
_______________________________________________
QA mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
