probably the best alternative until now... but I'm still not fully satisfied ;-(
Marc. > What about forceXxx? > > Paul. > > Marc Guillemot wrote: >> ok for the point: "hidden" is... hidden in the name of the step. >> >> I'm not really happy with emulate, pseudo and simulate. Perhaps fakeXxx? >> >> Marc. >> >> Paul King wrote: >>> Marc Guillemot wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm quite unhappy with the name of the field >>>> emulateSetHiddenInputField. >>>> >>>> Why "emulate"? Why not simply setHiddenInputField? >>> >>> If the user could normally trigger this by using some action then >>> we should drop the emulate. But this can never be triggered directly >>> by the user. It is only provided for when tricky javascript is not >>> working. The ideal is that we get the javascript working so a longer >>> ugly name is probably a good thing. >>> >>> Alternatives: pseudoXXX, simulateXXX >>> >>> Paul. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Name+of+step%3A+emulateSetHiddenInputField-t1645497.html#a4468635 Sent from the WebTest forum at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
