Done. Hopefully you all got e-mails from JIRA :) Modified proposal #2 to work with ID only.
Please go and add your comments there. Jarmo On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Bret Pettichord <[email protected]> wrote: > This thread is getting confusing, partly because three mostly unrelated > topics are being combined. > > I think we need to move this to three separate threads. > > Does it make sense to try and have these conversions in the comments to > three separate Jira tickets? > > Bret > > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Bret Pettichord <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Jarmo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, Bret. >>> >>> How do you see that #1 will cause compatibility problems? Do you mean >>> 0-based indexing? This is done anyway already with Watir WebDriver >>> (http://wiki.github.com/jarib/watir-webdriver/comparison-with-watir-1x) >>> and i think that it is a really good thing. If you have that in mind, >>> then default :index => won't bring any backwards compatibilities. >> >> Yes, i'm sorry i didn't read your proposal very carefully. I was >> responding to the idea of changing from a 1 to zero based indexing. >> >>> About #3 you might be correct, but i think that this is a one >>> technical debt which would be great to get rid of before it's too >>> late. Having backwards incompatibilities in mind i recommend to just >>> deprecate it in Watir 2.0 and remove completely in some newer version. >>> What if we issue Kernel.warn for every comma usage and show some >>> message when executing b.text_field(:id, "blah"): >>> >>> *** >>> Using 2 parameters as a element locator is DEPRECATED! Use at >>> c:/projects/project/spec/some_file_spec.rb:45 this instead: >>> text_field(:id => "blah") >>> *** >>> >>> It might get messy at first if comma notation is used a lot, but it >>> gives a possibility to clean things up and even to create some script >>> which would analyze this log and do it for you automatically. What do >>> you think about this or similar idea? >> >> I think this makes sense. >> >>> >>> When i think about technical debts, then it's not reasonable to have >>> it forever due to the reason of not wanting to create backwards >>> incompatibilities. >> >> I agree. Probably doing in two steps, where we give a warning in one >> version, before removing/changing the feature in a future version is the way >> to manage this. >> >> Bret >> -- >> Bret Pettichord >> Lead Developer, Watir, www.watir.com >> >> Blog, www.io.com/~wazmo/blog >> Twitter, www.twitter.com/bpettichord >> > > > > -- > Bret Pettichord > Lead Developer, Watir, www.watir.com > > Blog, www.io.com/~wazmo/blog > Twitter, www.twitter.com/bpettichord > > > _______________________________________________ > Wtr-development mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development > _______________________________________________ Wtr-development mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development
