How to use explicit wait in pageobject fields?
I have a pageobject class in which i declare fields and use the FindBy tag to instantiate them. How can i add a explicit wait for some of or all of those fields declared in the
My solution is to not use #FindBy.
In your page object:
By someElementLocator = By.cssSelector(".locator");
public void waitForElementPresent(final By locator, int timeout) {
ExpectedCondition e = new ExpectedCondition<Boolean>() {
public Boolean apply(WebDriver driver) {
return driver.findElements(locator).size() > 0;
}
};
WebDriverWait wait = new WebDriverWait(driver, timeout);
wait.until(e);
}
public WebElement getSomeElement() {
waitForElementPresent(someElementLocator);
return driver.findElement(locator);
}
Maybe it's an architectural issue. I can't seem to find any resources confirming that #FindBy support waits so maybe its usage depends on a test design/architecture.
I am completely changing my answer here. Its possible:
#FindBy(css="#loginBtn")
WebElement submitLoginBtn
WebElement submitLoginBtn(){
WebDriverWait wait = new WebDriverWait(driver,3)
wait.until(ExpectedConditions.elementToBeClickable(submitLoginBtn))
return submitLoginBtn
}
and now simply call the submitLoginBtn() method :
#Test
void login(){
LoginPage login = new LoginPage(driver)
login.userName().sendKeys("0000")
login.pin().sendKeys("0000")
login.submitLoginBtn().click()
}
Related
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.
Using AutoFixture with the AutoFixture.AutoMoq package, I sometimes find tests that weren't configured to correctly test the thing they meant to test, but the problem was never discovered because of the default (Loose) Mock behavior:
public interface IService
{
bool IsSomethingTrue(int id);
}
void Main()
{
var fixture = new Fixture()
.Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
var service = fixture.Freeze<Mock<IService>>();
Console.WriteLine(service.Object.IsSomethingTrue(1)); // false
}
I'd like to make Mocks get created with Strict behavior, so we're forced to call Setup() for the methods we expect to be called. I can do this for each individual mock like this:
fixture.Customize<Mock<IService>>(c => c.FromFactory(() => new Mock<IService>(MockBehavior.Strict)));
But after combing through source code for AutoMoqCustomization() and the various ISpecimenBuilder and other implementations, I'm pretty lost as to the best way to just make all Mocks get initialized with strict behavior. The framework appears to be very flexible and extensible, so I'm sure there's a simple way to do this--I just can't figure out how.
There's no simple built-in feature that will enable you to do something like that, but it shouldn't be that hard to do.
Essentially, you'd need to change MockConstructorQuery so that it invokes the constructor that takes a MockBehavior value, and pass in MockBehavior.Strict.
Now, you can't change that behaviour in MockConstructorQuery, but that class is only some 9-10 lines of code, so you should be able to create a new class that implements IMethodQuery by using MockConstructorQuery as a starting point.
Likewise, you'll also need to create a custom ICustomization that does almost exactly the same as AutoMoqCustomization, with the only exception that it uses your custom IMethodQuery with strict mock configuration instead of MockConstructorQuery. That's another 7 lines of code you'll need to write.
All that said, in my experience, using strict mocks is a bad idea. It'll make your tests brittle, and you'll waste a lot of time mending 'broken' tests. I can only recommend that you don't do this, but now I've warned you; it's your foot.
For those interested, down below you can find #MarkSeemann's reply translated into code. I am pretty sure it does not cover all use cases and it was not heavily tested. But it should be a good starting point.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using Moq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.AutoMoq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.Kernel;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class StrictAutoMoqCustomization : ICustomization
{
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization() : this(new MockRelay()) { }
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization(ISpecimenBuilder relay)
{
// TODO Null check params
Relay = relay;
}
public ISpecimenBuilder Relay { get; }
public void Customize(IFixture fixture)
{
// TODO Null check params
fixture.Customizations.Add(new MockPostprocessor(new MethodInvoker(new StrictMockConstructorQuery())));
fixture.ResidueCollectors.Add(Relay);
}
}
public class StrictMockConstructorMethod : IMethod
{
private readonly ConstructorInfo ctor;
private readonly ParameterInfo[] paramInfos;
public StrictMockConstructorMethod(ConstructorInfo ctor, ParameterInfo[] paramInfos)
{
// TODO Null check params
this.ctor = ctor;
this.paramInfos = paramInfos;
}
public IEnumerable<ParameterInfo> Parameters => paramInfos;
public object Invoke(IEnumerable<object> parameters) => ctor.Invoke(parameters?.ToArray() ?? new object[] { });
}
public class StrictMockConstructorQuery : IMethodQuery
{
public IEnumerable<IMethod> SelectMethods(Type type)
{
if (!IsMock(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
if (!GetMockedType(type).IsInterface && !IsDelegate(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
var ctor = type.GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(MockBehavior) });
return new IMethod[]
{
new StrictMockConstructorMethod(ctor, ctor.GetParameters())
};
}
private static bool IsMock(Type type)
{
return type != null && type.IsGenericType && typeof(Mock<>).IsAssignableFrom(type.GetGenericTypeDefinition()) && !GetMockedType(type).IsGenericParameter;
}
private static Type GetMockedType(Type type)
{
return type.GetGenericArguments().Single();
}
internal static bool IsDelegate(Type type)
{
return typeof(MulticastDelegate).IsAssignableFrom(type.BaseType);
}
}
}
Usage
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new StrictAutoMoqCustomization());
Good night guys!
I'm having the following problem ...
I have a web application that runs a "thread" that takes messages from the queue (MSMQ) ... Everything works correctly .. the problem is when I get this message, I can not display .. because the method that returns the message content is a "static" ..
I need to perform a function in JS to display this message.
conclusion:
The method "ProcessMessage" can not be named because he is not a static method ...
My main goal is to call a function in JS passing as parameter (m.Body.ToString ()) which is the content of the message.
Can anyone help me?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
This is my code.
public void StartThread()
{
try
{
while (true)
{
PrepareQueue();
}
}
catch (Exception)
{ }
}
public static void PrepareQueue()
{
MessageQueue myQueue = new MessageQueue(".\\private$\\CTIQueue");
myQueue.Formatter = new XmlMessageFormatter(new Type[] { typeof(String) });
// Add an event handler for the ReceiveCompleted event.
myQueue.ReceiveCompleted += new ReceiveCompletedEventHandler(MyReceiveCompleted);
// Define wait handles for multiple operations.
WaitHandle[] waitHandleArray = new WaitHandle[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// Begin asynchronous operations.
waitHandleArray[i] = myQueue.BeginReceive().AsyncWaitHandle;
}
// Specify to wait for all operations to return.
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandleArray);
return;
}
private static void MyReceiveCompleted(Object source, ReceiveCompletedEventArgs asyncResult)
{
try
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
MessageQueue mq = (MessageQueue)source;
// End the asynchronous receive operation.
System.Messaging.Message m = mq.EndReceive(asyncResult.AsyncResult);
ProcessMessage(m.Body.ToString()); <-- MY PROBLEM
}
catch (MessageQueueException)
{ }
return;
}
public void ProcessMessage(string message)
{
ScriptManager.RegisterStartupScript(this, GetType(), "popup", "NewCaller('" + message + "');", true);
}
Why not instantiate an object of the class and call ProcessMessage on it? Static methods can instantiate an object of the enclosing class and invoke instance methods on it.
private static void MyReceiveCompleted(Object source, ReceiveCompletedEventArgs asyncResult)
{
try
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
MessageQueue mq = (MessageQueue)source;
// End the asynchronous receive operation.
System.Messaging.Message m = mq.EndReceive(asyncResult.AsyncResult);
new MyClass().ProcessMessage(m.Body.ToString()); <-- MY PROBLEM
}
catch (MessageQueueException)
{ }
return;
}
But if you are planning to invoke a client side code from server side, with reactive action happening at the server's end(which I think is your case) -- then I would prefer you use ASP.NET SignalR to signal the client that something interesting has happened at the server's end.
I am using Angela's framework for screens management and I am trying to write a very simple Calendar-application. While writing the UI and the controllers and using the aforementioned framework, all screens initialize immediately on program start. This means I have no idea when the user is actually looking at a certain view.
I need the login-token from the server (assigned in the LoginController) to fire a changed value event of some kind in the CalendarController that is currently running in the background (I presume). At the moment I don't know when the Calendar.fxml is visible and/if the user is logged in, and hence I don't know how to structure my logic to make a function start in CalendarController ONLY after the login-token has been set.
Been stuck a few days here, any help would be greatly appreciated. I have tried using an ObservableList and Listlistener-interface to no avail. Here is the respective part of my LoginController. TokenFactory is a class of static fields and methods (mostly trying to debug).
#FXML
public boolean login() throws JSONException, UnirestException {
if(validateUsernameField() && validatePasswordField()) {
HttpResponse<JsonNode> jsonResponse = Unirest.post(TokenFactory.getSERVER_ADR())
.field("username", usernameField.getText())
.field("password", passwordField.getText())
.asJson();
if ( ((String) jsonResponse.getBody().getObject().get("message")).equalsIgnoreCase("OK")) {
String token = ((String) jsonResponse.getBody().getObject().get("token"));
//Ignore JSON to debug
TokenFactory.setToken("fakeToken123");
responseLabel.setText("Logging in...");
myController.setScreen(ScreensFramework.CalendarID);
return true;
} else {
responseLabel.setText("Wrong username or password.");
passwordField.clear();
}
} return false;
}
//Screen management
ScreensController myController;
You have a bunch of options here:
First option: instead of loading all the screens at startup, just load the calendar screen when the login is successful. Then your CalendarController's initialize() method can basically assume the user is logged in.
Second option: modify the framework so that it either returns a reference to the controllers when it loads them, or gives you access to the controllers once loaded. The first version of this would look like:
public <T extends ControlledScreen> T loadScreen(String name, String resource) {
try {
FXMLLoader myLoader = new FXMLLoader(getClass().getResource(resource));
Parent loadScreen = (Parent) myLoader.load();
T myScreenControler = myLoader.getController();
myScreenControler.setScreenParent(this);
addScreen(name, loadScreen);
return myScreenControler ;
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
return null;
}
}
Now when you first load the calendar screen, you can get a reference to its controller:
CalendarController calendarController = screensController.loadScreen(...);
so now when you are successfully logged in, you can invoke a method on the calendarController. Note the return type of loadScreen(...) has changed, so you may need to modify other code accordingly.
Alternatively, you could introduce a new map in ScreensController:
public class ScreensController extends StackPane {
private Map<String, Node> screens = new HashMap<>();
private Map<String, ControlledScreen> controllers = new HashMap<>();
// ...
public boolean loadScreen(String name, String resource) {
try {
FXMLLoader myLoader = new FXMLLoader(getClass().getResource(resource));
Parent loadScreen = (Parent) myLoader.load();
ControlledScreen myScreenControler = ((ControlledScreen) myLoader.getController());
myScreenControler.setScreenParent(this);
addScreen(name, loadScreen);
// also save the controller:
controllers.put(name, myScreenControler);
return true;
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.getMessage());
return false;
}
}
// ...
// new method to retrieve controller:
public ControlledScreen getController(String name) {
return controllers.get(name);
}
// modify the remove method to clean up the controller as well:
public boolean unloadScreen(String name) {
if (screens.remove(name) == null) {
System.out.println("Screen didn't exist");
return false;
} else {
controllers.remove(name);
return true;
}
}
}
Now when the user logs in, you can do
CalendarController calendarController =
(CalendarController) myController.getController(ScreensFramework.CalendarID);
and invoke whatever method you need on calendarController.
Third option: create a BooleanProperty loggedIn = new SimpleBooleanProperty(); and just set it to true when the user is logged in. Then arrange for your CalendarController to be able to observe it and react when it changes. I like this option less, because arranging for the CalendarController to see the loggedIn property will almost certainly involve some kind of additional coupling between that controller and another class, but it is possible.
I'm making a small game in LibGDX. I'm saving the player's username locally as well as on a server. The problem is that the application is not waiting for the result of the call so the online database's ID is not saved locally. Here's the overall flow of the code:
//Create a new user object
User user = new User(name);
//Store the user in the online database
NetworkService networkService = new NetworkService();
String id = networkService.saveUser(user);
//Set the newly generated dbase ID on the local object
user.setId(id);
//Store the user locally
game.getUserService().persist(user);
in this code, the id variable is not getting set because the saveUser function is returning immediately. How can I make the application wait for the result of the network request so I can work with results from the server communication?
This is the code for saveUser:
public String saveUser(User user) {
Map<String, String> parameters = new HashMap<String, String>();
parameters.put("action", "save_user");
parameters.put("json", user.toJSON());
HttpRequest httpGet = new HttpRequest(HttpMethods.POST);
httpGet.setUrl("http://localhost:8080/provisioner");
httpGet.setContent(HttpParametersUtils.convertHttpParameters(parameters));
WerewolfsResponseListener responseListener = new WerewolfsResponseListener();
Gdx.net.sendHttpRequest (httpGet, responseListener);
return responseListener.getLastResponse();
}
This is the WerewolfsResponseListener class:
class WerewolfsResponseListener implements HttpResponseListener {
private String lastResponse = "";
public void handleHttpResponse(HttpResponse httpResponse) {
System.out.println(httpResponse.getResultAsString());
this.lastResponse = httpResponse.getResultAsString();
}
public void failed(Throwable t) {
System.out.println("Saving user failed: "+t.getMessage());
this.lastResponse = null;
}
public String getLastResponse() {
return lastResponse;
}
}
The asynchrony you are seeing is from Gdx.net.sendHttpRequest. The methods on the second parameter (your WerewolfsResponseListener) will be invoked whenever the request comes back. The success/failure methods will not be invoked "inline".
There are two basic approaches for dealing with callbacks structured like this: "polling" or "events".
With polling, your main game loop could "check" the responseListener to see if its succeeded or failed. (You would need to modify your current listener a bit to disambiguate the success case and the empty string.) Once you see a valid response, you can then do the user.setId() and such.
With "events" then you can just put the user.setId() call inside the responseListener callback, so it will be executed whenever the network responds. This is a bit more of a natural fit to the Libgdx net API. (It does mean your response listener will need a reference to the user object.)
It is not possible to "wait" inline for the network call to return. The Libgdx network API (correctly) assumes you do not want to block indefinitely in your render thread, so its not structured for that (the listener will be queued up as a Runnable, so the earliest it can run is on the next render call).
I would not recommend this to any human being, but if you need to test something in a quick and dirty fashion and absolutely must block, this will work. There's no timeout, so again, be prepared for absolute filth:
long wait = 10;
while(!listener.isDone())
{
Gdx.app.log("Net", "Waiting for response");
try
{
Thread.sleep(wait *= 2);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static class BlockingResponseListener implements HttpResponseListener
{
private String data;
private boolean done = false;
private boolean succeeded = false;
#Override
public void handleHttpResponse(HttpResponse httpResponse)
{
Gdx.app.log("Net", "response code was "+httpResponse.getStatus().getStatusCode());
data = httpResponse.getResultAsString();
succeeded = true;
done = true;
}
#Override
public void failed(Throwable t)
{
done = true;
succeeded = false;
Gdx.app.log("Net", "Failed due to exception ["+t.getMessage()+"]");
}
public boolean succeeded()
{
return succeeded;
}
public boolean isDone()
{
return done;
}
public String getData()
{
return data;
}
}