Rather than a "verifyElementNotPresent" step, would it be easier to introduce an optional attribute? The attribute would have the same effect as wrapping the step in a <not>, but it would be much terser in syntax. That way, you could turn ANY verification step into a "verifyNOTxxx" step just by setting the attribute.
Thanks, Nate --__--__-- Message: 12 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:49:23 +0100 From: Marc Guillemot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Webtest] VerifyElementNotPresent? Reply-To: [email protected] Reply-To: Marc Guillemot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Bernd, personally I use something like <not> <verifyXPath xpath="//[EMAIL PROTECTED]'foo'"/> </not> but that's nearly as ugly as your proposition ;-( In general the <not> construct is very powerful but in this case something like verifyElementNotPresent could perhaps make sense. Cheers, Marc. PS: congratulation for the nice blog on Dierk's WebTest session at Grails Exchange (in fact for the whole serie) -- Blog: http://mguillem.wordpress.com Bernd Schiffer wrote: > Hi. > > What's the simplest way to assert that a element with an id (!) is _not_ > present on a page? > > Something like > <not> > <verifyElementText > htmlId="foo" > regex="true" > text=".*" /> > </not> > > But that's ugly and I think there must be a simpler way in WebTest, though > I'm not that familiar with this tool so far. > > Thanks in advance, > Bernd --__--__-- _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest End of WebTest Digest _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
