Can you please pay a little attention to the ongoing conversation? The conversation is not about using element() or using link() function, the conversation is about performance issue while I use visible text. I am ready to use visible text If it does the good performance but it's not doing it, I am trying to click a link which takes minutes to click that link but when I use link locator it clicks instantly.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:08:18 AM UTC+5:30, Chuck van der Linden wrote: > > On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 9:03:18 AM UTC-8, rajagopalan madasami > wrote: >> >> It is known that using :visible_text will not have the same performance. >> It has to iterate over elements, where as the Selenium ones would not. >> The benefit of :visible_text is that we can apply it across all element >> types, not just links. >> >> Yes, it is increasing the performance ! But still it's taking much time >> but compared to element() function it's okay. But *link*: locator really >> rocks! I still don't have any clue why WATIR is going to forbid using such >> a powerful performance of Selenium, I don't see any reason other than >> putting just name sake of WATIR API. >> >> I have a number of ideas for improving locator performance in general. >> However, for this specific case, you will see performance improvements by >> not using #element. Just switching to using #link will cut down the >> number of elements Watir has to iterate over. If there are other locators >> to reduce the links checked, that will also help performance. If that >> doesn't help, a specific example would help us identify other places for >> performance improvements. >> >> Yes, I agree using b.link() increases the performance, But I completely >> against the idea of not using the link: locator of selenium. >> >> If I pass the locator which is inside the selenium locators list, then >> make a direct call to find_element just by passing those two values, but >> when you find the locator which is not in selenium locators list, then go >> for formation of xpath. It's pretty simple. It was good but I don't know >> why all these unnecessary arrangement which actually spoils the WATIR >> structure rather than improving. The very first time yesterday when I >> developed WATIR code for new project, I installed previous version(6.8.4) >> because of this new arrangement. >> >> > If you want to just use `.element` method instead of specific element type > methods such as `.link` , and use selenium locators instead of those that > Watir provides, then why use Watir? Why not just use raw Webdriver > instead, since you see to like its API more than the Watir API? The only > time I use .element with Watir is as a last resort when nothing else will > work. Otherwise I use the selection methods that parallel the DOM element > type I am selecting, be it a .div or a .link or a .checkbox > -- -- Before posting, please read http://watir.com/support. In short: search before you ask, be nice. [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/watir-general [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Watir General" 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.
