Awsome, thanks!
One last question, in my tests I keep a collection of page parameters for
my pages.
I've noticed at some point wicket tester (or deeper in the framework, prob.
in the page factory) that the PageParameter instance used had the
parameters combined from different instances. That scared me a bit.
ie: I have
customConstructors = new HashMap<Class<? extends AdminPage>,
PageParameters>();
customConstructors.put(PageA.class, new PageParameters().set("pageID",
"-1"));
customConstructors.put(PageB.class, new PageParameters().set("sessionID",
"-2"));
and then later when running the test:
PageParameters pageParameters = customConstructors.get(pageClass);
if(pageParameters != null) {
log.info("Running " + pageTest.getTestName() + " for " +
pageClass.getName() + " with pageParameters of " + pageParameters);
pageTest.runTest(getTester(), pageClass,
customConstructors.get(pageClass));
}
Above log stamenent would print correct, but when in the page constructor
both pageID AND sessionID are present althrough those are 2 different
instances of PageParameters.
Should I dig more into that?
To me that sounds like a bug :(
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>wrote:
> AFAIR if there are no request parameters then Wicket first uses the Java
> default constructor (no parameters) if available.
> If there is no such constructor then Wicket constructs an empty
> PageParameters and uses it for the constructor with PageParameters.
> If none are available then an error is thrown.
>
> Consult with DefaultPageFactory.java
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Paul Bors <p...@bors.ws> wrote:
>
> > Btw, I just noticed that adding this constructor eliminates the problem:
> > public MyPage() {
> > this(null);
> > }
> >
> > So I take it Wicket tries to build the page via the Page(PageParameters)
> > but instead of using a null reference to the PageParameters it builds an
> > object without any parameters in it.
> >
> > If the default constructor is added, then it can invoke the custom
> > PageParameters constructor with the null reference.
> > I don't recall this behavior. Has this changed recently?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Paul Bors <p...@bors.ws> wrote:
> >
> > > Suppose I have a page with the default constructor and with the page
> > > parameter constructor.
> > >
> > > Should my page parameter constructor be called with an empty not null
> > > PageParameter instance when no parameters are provided? Shouldn't the
> > > default constructor be used instead?
> > >
> > > What about in unit tests?
> > > I've seen the tester use the page parameter constructor and pass it a
> > > reference to an empty PageParameters when I invoke
> > > tester.startPage(MyPage.class, null).
> > >
> >
>
