to me, the only thing that's special about setting a hidden field is that it's 'hidden'. Neither do I see that it is emulated nor forced in any way that's different from other setXXX steps.
I opt for 'setHiddenInputField'. cheers Mittie > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marc Guillemot > Sent: Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 5:40 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Webtest] Name of step: emulateSetHiddenInputField > > > > 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.ht ml#a4468635 Sent from the WebTest forum at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
