On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Paul Bors <p...@bors.ws> wrote:
> 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 :(
>
Yes, it is not correct behavior if you use tester.startPage(clazz,
parameters).
Make a quickstart and attach it to Jira.
>
>
>
>
> 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).
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
