I m somebody who to new to Automation. I m currently learning Selenium Webdriver with JAVA along with Page Object Model pattern. When I experimenting with the few lines of code I got myself strucked at one point. I created a separate class file for the Page Elements which has the below code.
public class SamplePage {
WebDriver Driver;
public WebElement Gmail_Email_TextBox = Driver.findElement(By.xpath(".//*[#id='Email']"));
public WebElement Gmail_Email_Next_Button = Driver.findElement(By.xpath(".//*[#id='next']"));
public SamplePage(WebDriver Driver) { //This is a constructor.
System.out.println("Constructor");
this.Driver = Driver;
}
}
When try call the above page in another class I get java.lang.NullPointerException. Pls find the code below.
public class SampleTestMethod {
WebDriver Driver;
#BeforeMethod
public void BrowserLaunch() throws InterruptedException {
Driver = Browser.LaunchMozillaFirefox("https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?continue=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F&service=mail&sacu=1&rip=1");
}
#Test
public void TestCase1() {
SamplePage Sample1 = new SamplePage(Driver);
Sample1.Gmail_Email_TextBox.click();
}
}
Pls clarify me on this. The constructor is not being called at all. This is what I have observed.
Class fields like Gmail_Email_TextBox and Gmail_Email_Next_Button are evaluated as null before constructor's call and never changed afterwards. That is why.
Simply put: initialize those fields in a different place.
You can add a #FindBy annotation to each of them and then just use PageFactory:
SamplePage samplePage = new SamplePage();
PageFactory.initElements(driver, samplePage);
Further info on this.
Follow naming conventions and use camelCase.
Instance variables are initialized before constructor calls.
Check this out to see it yourself:
public class Example {
private String instanceVariable;
private String anotherInstanceVariable = instanceVariable + " appended.";
public Example(String instanceVariable) {
this.instanceVariable = instanceVariable;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Example example = new Example("The first one");
System.out.println(example.anotherInstanceVariable);
}
}
instanceVariable is like your driver. anotherInstanceVariable is like any of your WebElements.
Related
I've a java binding for android which somewhat works bar the new feature I'm trying to integrate with. Only now I have realised that the intended callback is not happening. Here are the classes (decompiled to java) in question:
At the top level we have
public interface MyPackage {
MyPackage.Companion Companion = MyPackage.Companion.$$INSTANCE;
public static final class Companion {
#Nullable
private static MyEventHandler myEventHandler;
// $FF: synthetic field
static final MyPackage.Companion $$INSTANCE;
#Nullable
public final MyEventHandler getMyEventHandler() {
return myEventHandler;
}
public final void setMyEventHandler(#Nullable MyEventHandler var1) {
myEventHandler = var1;
}
private Companion() {
}
static {
MyPackage.Companion var0 = new MyPackage.Companion();
$$INSTANCE = var0;
}
}
}
MyEventHandler class:
public abstract class MyEventHandler {
public abstract void handleEvent(#NotNull String var1, #NotNull Properties var2);
}
Properties class:
import java.util.Map;
public class Properties extends r {
public Properties() {
}
Properties(Map<String, Object> var1) {
super(var1);
}
public Properties a(String var1, Object var2) {
super.b(var1, var2);
return this;
}
}
and the problematic r class:
public class r implements Map<String, Object> {
private final Map<String, Object> a;
various implementations...
}
So I noticed the issue when I couldnt override the HandleEvent method at the integration level and started looking at the Binding logs and found:
Warning=>
BINDINGSGENERATOR: Warning BG8801: Invalid parameter type MyPackage...Properties in method HandleEvent in managed type MyPackage.MyEventHandler. (BG8801)
And in build logs:
message BG0000: warning BG8102: Class MyPackage....Properties has unknown base type MyPackage....r.
warning BG8801: Invalid parameter type MyPackage...Properties in method HandleEvent in managed type MyPackage.MyEventHandler.
As it was obvious r is an obfuscated class I need to make chagnes to my Metadata so I went ahead and popped in:
<attr path="/api/package[#name='MyPackage']/class[#name='r']" name="obfuscated">false</attr>
Which resulted in the R being generated but now I get the 5 following compile error:
Error CS0535: 'R' does not implement interface member 'IMap.EntrySet()' (CS0535)
Error CS0738: 'R' does not implement interface member 'IMap.KeySet()'. 'R.KeySet()' cannot implement 'IMap.KeySet()' because it does not have the matching return type of 'ICollection'. (CS0738)
Error CS0535: 'R' does not implement interface member 'IMap.Put(Object?, Object?)' (CS0535)
Error CS0535: 'R' does not implement interface member 'IMap.PutAll(IDictionary?)' (CS0535)
Error CS0738: 'R' does not implement interface member 'IMap.Values()'. 'R.Values()' cannot implement 'IMap.Values()' because it does not have the matching return type of 'ICollection'. (CS0738)
I tried to make a managed return using
<attr path="/api/package[#name='MyPackage']/class[#name='r']/method[#name='entrySet' and count(parameter)=0]" name="managedReturn">Java.Util.IMap</attr>
With same number of compile error as above. Then I tried removing the node using:
<remove-node path="/api/package[#name='MyPackage']/class[#name='r']/method[#name='entrySet']"/>
Still no luck. :(
What am I missing here? Any pointers/suggestions will be appreciated!
It seems like you are trying to expose a Map to C# and as you stated, Java Generics are not handled very well.
In a very popular social network you received an answer from #mattleibow. I do not take credit for his answer but I went to check nonetheless and it seems fine.
If you look at the description of the Java.Lang.HashMap type
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/java.util.hashmap?view=xamarin-android-sdk-9 it's a good candidate for you to expose.
You can also try with the corresponding interface for better safety https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/java.util.imap?view=xamarin-android-sdk-9
If it works you will still have to cast the types yourself.
Please answer to the comment to say that problem is solved for the sake of future generations arriving on this post :D
Credit is not mine so don't give it to me :-)
John,
I got arround fixing it by providing implementation of the the said methods in a partial class. Basically added a new file called R.cs under Additions folder as follows:
namespace YourNameSpace
{
public partial class R
{
public void PutAll(System.Collections.IDictionary p0)
{
PutAll(p0);
}
public Java.Lang.Object Put(Java.Lang.Object key, Java.Lang.Object value)
{
return Put(key, value);
}
public System.Collections.ICollection EntrySet()
{
return EntrySet();
}
public System.Collections.ICollection KeySet()
{
return KeySet();
}
public System.Collections.ICollection Values()
{
return Values();
}
}
}
I couldn't get it to work by adding XML transformation, but I think there was some tooling issue.
I am using a suite file with multiple suites inside the testng.xml file as follows:
<suite-files>
<suite-file path="suite1"></suite-file>
<suite-file path="suite2"></suite-file>
</suite-files>
I am initializing ExtentReport in BeforeSuite.
private static void initializeExtentReport(Configuration config) {
if (extent == null) {
extent = new ExtentReports();
htmlReporter = new ExtentHtmlReporter("reportLocation");
ClassLoader classLoader = ExtentReportService.class.getClassLoader();
File extentConfigFile = new File(classLoader.getResource("extent-config.xml").getFile());
htmlReporter.loadXMLConfig(extentConfigFile);
extent.attachReporter(htmlReporter);
extent.setSystemInfo("Environment", config.getAutomationServer());
}
}
In AfterSuite, I am calling flush().
So basically the issue is, when the before suite is called for the second suite, The check (extent==null), is coming false. I also went through the JavaDocs for ExtentReports and I found a method detachReporter() there. But I am not able to access by my IDE. Tried many variations but to no fruition.
EDIT:
Right now what really happens is, I am using custom names for reports, so that no two report names are the same. And, when I was using with the same name, the results would be over written in the same file for the suites.
A better approach here is to use a singleton like so:
public class Extent
implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private static class ExtentReportsLoader {
private static final ExtentReports INSTANCE = new ExtentReports();
static {
}
}
public static synchronized ExtentReports getInstance() {
return ExtentReportsLoader.INSTANCE;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
private ExtentReports readResolve() {
return ExtentReportsLoader.INSTANCE;
}
}
Usage:
ExtentReports extent = Extent.getInstance();
So your code becomes:
private static void initializeExtentReport(Configuration config) {
extent = Extent.getInstance();
if (extent.getStartedReporters().isEmpty()) {
htmlReporter = new ExtentHtmlReporter("reportLocation");
ClassLoader classLoader = ExtentReportService.class.getClassLoader();
File extentConfigFile = new File(classLoader.getResource("extent-config.xml").getFile());
htmlReporter.loadXMLConfig(extentConfigFile);
extent.attachReporter(htmlReporter);
extent.setSystemInfo("Environment", config.getAutomationServer());
}
}
I would further recommend getting rid of all shared variables for extent/htmlReporter and directly use the Singleton
I have a simple console application which uses Autofac as IoC container.
class Program
{
static IContainer container;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
container = Configure();
Run();
}
private static void Run()
{
using (var scope = container.BeginLifetimeScope())
{
var t = scope.Resolve<ITest1>();
var s = t.TestMethod1("");
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
}
private static IContainer Configure()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<TestClass1>()
.As<ITest1>();
builder.RegisterType<TestClass2>()
.As<ITest2>();
return builder.Build();
}
}
The application calls the method "TestMethod1" in "TestClass1".
public interface ITest1
{
string TestMethod1(string s);
}
public class TestClass1 : ITest1
{
ITest2 f;
public TestClass1(Func<ITest2> test2Factory)
{
f = test2Factory();
}
public string TestMethod1(string s)
{
var r = string.Empty;
r = f.TestMethod2(s);
r += ":TestMethod1";
return r;
}
}
TestClass1 has a dependency on TestClass2 which declares a delegate factory for Autofac to use with the TestClass1 constructor.
public interface ITest2
{
string TestMethod2(string s);
}
public class TestClass2 : ITest2
{
public delegate TestClass2 Factory();
public virtual string TestMethod2(string s)
{
return ":TestMethod2";
}
}
This all works as expected - Autofac resolves the TestClass2 dependency, and I get the output ":TestMethod2:TestMethod1".
Now I want to mock TestClass2 using Moq and the Autofac.Extras.Moq extensions. I add the following method to the console application, and call it from the Program Main method.
private static void Test()
{
using (var mock = AutoMock.GetLoose())
{
mock.Mock<TestClass2>()
.Setup(t => t.TestMethod2(""))
.Returns(":NOT_TEST_METHOD2");
var s = mock.Create<TestClass1>();
var r = s.TestMethod1("cheese");
Console.WriteLine(r);
}
}
Now I get the output ":TestMethod1" when I expect ":NOT_TEST_METHOD2:TestMethod1". It seems the mock has not been called. This is confirmed when I step through the code.
I have also tried resolving the mock using mock.Provide(), as has been suggested elsewhere (see below). Still no luck.
var wc = Moq.Mock.Of<TestClass2>(f => f.TestMethod2("") == ":NOT_TEST_METHOD2");
Func<string, ITest2> factory = x => wc;
mock.Provide(factory);
This seems like a really simple scenario but I've not found a working answer anywhere. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for any help!
I don't use the AutoMock support, but I do know my Autofac, so I can give it a shot.
It looks like TestClass1 takes an ITest2 and not a TestClass2 in its constructor, I'm guessing if you switched to this:
mock.Mock<ITest2>()
.Setup(t => t.TestMethod2(""))
.Returns(":NOT_TEST_METHOD2");
...then it might work.
Thanks Travis. Your suggestion didn't work for me, but it made me think about the issue differently and taking a step back made me realise I was looking for a complex solution where one wasn't required. Namely, that only Moq was needed, Autofac AutoMock extensions were not. The following code worked:
private static void Test()
{
Func<ITest2> func = () =>
{
var x = new Mock<ITest2>();
x.Setup(t => t.TestMethod2("")).Returns(":NOT_TEST_METHOD2");
return x.Object;
};
var s = new TestClass1(func);
var r = s.TestMethod1("");
}
The question was answered by this post Using Moq to Mock a Func<> constructor parameter and Verify it was called twice.
I have a following problem. I register my components and initialize them in Unity like this (example is for a Console application):
public class SharePointBootstrapper : UnityBootstrapper
{
...
public object Initialize(Type type, object parameter) =>
Container.Resolve(type,
new DependencyOverride<IClientContext>(Container.Resolve<IClientContext>(parameter.ToString())),
new DependencyOverride<ITenantRepository>(Container.Resolve<ITenantRepository>(parameter.ToString())));
public void RegisterComponents()
{
Container
.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnlineClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString())
.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnPremiseClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString())
.RegisterType<ITenantRepository, DocumentDbTenantRepository>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString())
.RegisterType<ITenantRepository, JsonTenantRepository>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString());
}
}
public enum SharePointClientContext
{
Online,
OnPremise
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
...
bootstrap.RegisterComponents();
var bla = bootstrap.Initialize(typeof(ISharePointManager), SharePointClientContext.Online);
}
}
So, I register my components in MVC, WCF, Console etc. once with RegisterComponents() and initialize them with Initialize().
My question is, if I want to initialize specific named registration at runtime, from e.g. user input, can it be done otherwise as the code presented (with InjectionFactory or similar)?
This code works fine, but I'm not happy with its implementation. I have a feeling that it could be written in RegisterComponents() instead of Initialize() so that it accepts a parameter of some type, but I don't know how to do it.
Or, is maybe my whole concept wrong? If so, what would you suggest? I need to resolve named registration from a parameter that is only known at runtime, regardless of the technology (MVC, WCF, Console, ...).
Thanks!
Instead of doing different registrations, I would do different resolves.
Let's say that you need to inject IClientContext, but you want different implementations depending on a runtime parameter.
I wrote a similiar answer here. Instead of injecting IClientContext, you could inject IClientContextFactory, which would be responsible for returning the correct IClientContext. It's called Strategy Pattern.
public interface IClientContextFactory
{
string Context { get; } // Add context to the interface.
}
public class SharePointOnlineClientContext : IClientContextFactory
{
public string Context
{
get
{
return SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString();
}
}
}
// Factory for resolving IClientContext.
public class ClientContextFactory : IClientContextFactory
{
public IEnumerable<IClientContext> _clientContexts;
public Factory(IClientContext[] clientContexts)
{
_clientContexts = clientContexts;
}
public IClientContext GetClientContext(string parameter)
{
IClientContext clientContext = _clientContexts.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Context == parameter);
return clientContext;
}
}
Register them all, just as you did. But instead of injecting IClientContext you inject IClientContextFactor.
There also another solution where you use a Func-factory. Look at option 3, in this answer. One may argue that this is a wrapper for the service locator-pattern, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.
public class ClientContextFactory : IClientContextFactory
{
private readonly Func<string, IClientContext> _createFunc;
public Factory(Func<string, IClientContext> createFunc)
{
_createFunc = createFunc;
}
public IClientContext CreateClientContext(string writesTo)
{
return _createFunc(writesTo);
}
}
And use named registrations:
container.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnlineClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString());
container.RegisterType<IClientContext, SharePointOnPremiseClientContext>(SharePointClientContext.OnPremise.ToString());
container.RegisterType<IFactory, Factory>(
new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager(), // Or any other lifetimemanager.
new InjectionConstructor(
new Func<string, IClientContext>(
context => container.Resolve<IClientContext>(context));
Usage:
public class MyService
{
public MyService(IClientContextFactory clientContextFactory)
{
_clientContextFactory = clientContextFactory;
}
public void DoStuff();
{
var myContext = SharePointClientContext.Online.ToString();
IClientContextclientContext = _clientContextFactory.CreateClientContext(myContext);
}
}
I searched a lot and still couldn't find a solid solution for this. Suppose you have methods in your application. This methods use "System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration" to access some setting in the web.config. If you try to test these methods, your tests will fail because your test project doesn't have web.config.
What is the best way to solve this problem. For projects with simple config file, I usually use a method like this as facade method.
public class Config
{
public static String getKeyValue(String keyName)
{
if (keyName == String.Empty) return String.Empty;
String result = "";
System.Configuration.Configuration rootWebConfig1 =
System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration(null);
if (rootWebConfig1.AppSettings.Settings.Count > 0)
{
System.Configuration.KeyValueConfigurationElement reportEngineKey =
rootWebConfig1.AppSettings.Settings[keyName];
if (reportEngineKey != null)
{
result = reportEngineKey.Value;
}
}
return result;
}
}
Every time I tried to set the path for OpenWebConfiguration( ), I got the error "The relative virtual path is not allowed"
To make that scenario more testable, I usually take the approach of making a "settings manager" of my own, and giving it an interface. So for example:
public interface IConfig
{
string GetSettingValue(string settingName);
}
Then I can have my "real" implementation:
public sealed class Config : IConfig
{
public string GetSettingValue(string settingName)
{
// your code from your getKeyValue() method would go here
}
}
Then my code that uses it would take in an instance of this (this is an example of the Dependency Inversion Principal):
public void DoStuff(IConfig configuration)
{
string someSetting = configuration.GetSettingValue("ThatThingINeed");
// use setting...
}
So now for my production code, I can call DoStuff and pass in an instance of Config.
When I need to test, I can use a mocking tool (Moq, JustMock, RhinoMocks, etc) to create a fake IConfig that returns a known value without hitting the actual .config file, or you can do it without a mocking framework by making your own mocks (and store them in your test project).
public class ConfigMock : IConfig
{
private Dictionary<string, string> settings;
public void SetSettingValue(string settingName, string value)
{
settings[settingName] = value;
}
public string GetSettingValue(string settingName)
{
return settings[settingName];
}
}
and
[Test]
public void SomeExampleTest()
{
var config = new ConfigMock();
config.SetSettingValue("MySetting", "SomeValue");
var underTest = new MyClass();
underTest.DoStuff(config);
}
The easiest way to do this is to use a mocking library such as moq. It takes a bit of time to figure it out, but once you do you can abstract away most of your plumbing to return the values you need for repeatable, consistent testing.