On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Hugh McGowan <colinsda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think picking a page-object gem to support is fine but it's not clear
to me that Jeff's gem is the right one.
I know that at Blackbaud/Convio you use watirmark[1]. If there was
watirmark workshop this year at Austin maybe I would now be recommending
it. :)
> For example, the one we use is different in some very basic ways. Ours is
agnostic to the implementation so we don't care what is driving the "page".
We use it for watir, selenium, editing XML files, calling WIN32OLE methods
for our own DLLs, etc. For us, it's just an abstraction for grouping
getters and setters and keeping the implementation separated from the usage
of that implementation.
The only thing that I do not like about page-object gem is that it adds
it's own API on top of the driver.
Examples[2]:
browser.button(:id => 'an_id') # watir
button(:your_name, :id => 'an_id') # page-object
keyword :your_name {browser.button(:id => 'an_id')} #watirmark
I really prefer how watirmark does it. But maybe it could be added to
page-object gem.
> Maybe this is a good topic to address in the Watir conference next year -
we can have a page-object smackdown!
+1
I think this is the next big discussion that we need to have.
Željko
--
[1] https://github.com/convio/watirmark
[2] https://github.com/cheezy/page-object/issues/102#issuecomment-6331222
_______________________________________________
Wtr-development mailing list
Wtr-development@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development
