Linda, Can you use <not> to achieve what you want?
That is, rather than having the step fail, but the remaining steps be executed, if you expect (in fact, *demand*) a failure, then you can wrap the assertion in a not, at which point it succeeds (I think ... I'm new to this as well), and all is good. Others will correct me if I'm mistaken, I hope. Amy! On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:24:03 -0400, Linda de Boer wrote: > G'day > > I found that using the "haltonfailure" config option, that I still > could not get the test to continue to the next step. > > According to the documentation "Even when set to "false" all of the > trailing <step>s of the current <webtest> will be skipped but > processing will continue with the next <webtest>.". If I understand > this and all the other threads I've read today, I need to start a new > "<webtest>" for the next test step. If this is so, then I need a new > invoke. This has also been noted by another fellow in one of the > threads, but I can't find it again. > > I am thinking that I have misunderstood something because this is a > very well organized package. I figure I've got to have missed > something. Is there a way around this that I have not found? > > What I am currently doing is just testing menu buttons and verifying > pages. A simple starter. But I'd like a full report of all the > buttons, pass or fail, all at once. Not one or two at a time > depending upon when it failed. Am I trying to do something that I > should not? > > Thanks much......;-) > > -- > ldb > _______________________________________________ > WebTest mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
