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,
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools>
My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets
<http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>
_______________________________________________
swtbot-dev mailing list
swtbot-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/swtbot-dev
