Re: [Wtr-general] FireWatir deserves its own project
But the bigger issue of ensuring compatability between versions of Watir is tricky. For example, FireWatir doesn't support frames. Is this reasonable? I suppose that is up to whatever minimum standard is used to determine whether an API is sufficiently compatible or not. I like the idea of having a test suite that determines whether the API has met the standard ... and I suggest the suite be named Poseidon (god of wat[i]r). And even then, i suspect that each implementation would have some additional features that were not part of the standard API. No doubt. For example, SafariWatir has close and quit methods. One closes the window, while the other quits the application. Another example: SafariWatir has an alert method that returns an AlertWindow that has a click method. :-) This suggests that each implementation also should have a strict mode where it only allows execution against the core API or least creates warnings for all other uses. This way, users (or their managers) could make sure their tests were portable. Otherwise they wouldn't know until they tried. Great idea. ___ Wtr-general mailing list Wtr-general@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
Re: [Wtr-general] FireWatir deserves its own project
On 7/13/06, Dave Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And even then, i suspect that each implementation would have some additional features that were not part of the standard API.No doubt.For example, SafariWatir has close and quit methods.Onecloses the window, while the other quits the application.Another example: SafariWatir has an alert method that returns an AlertWindowthat has a click method.:-)I put together a half-baked implementation of this in watir/ie in trunk (watir/dialog.rb, watir/unittests/dialog_test.rb). I called my method dialog instead of alert. I guess this is a good question for the community -- what should this method be called? I don't think anyone is using this method and i have no emotional attachment. With mine this is how you click an alert button:ie.dialog.button(OK).clickComments? ___ Wtr-general mailing list Wtr-general@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
Re: [Wtr-general] FireWatir deserves its own project
On 7/13/06, Bret Pettichord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With mine this is how you click an alert button: ie.dialog.button(OK).click For clarification, this is how you click an alert button with SafariWatir: browser.alert.click It doesn't take a parameter since alert boxes only have one button. There would be a separate method for confirm boxes: browser.confirm(OK).click browser.confirm(Cancel).click Like Bret, I have no emotional attachment. Just looking to fit in with the rest of the API. ___ Wtr-general mailing list Wtr-general@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
Re: [Wtr-general] FireWatir deserves its own project
On 7/12/06, Bret Pettichord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what FireWatir needs is more experimentation, and that means that it needs to be developed according to different development rules from Watir. I am happy to consult, and to hear any ideas about how it might develop differently, but i think it is time for it to spread its wings, and am not so sure that it wouldn't even be best if there were a couple active versions of Ruby/FireFox drivers, free to share code and ideas between them, but with out too much worry about consistency and agreement. It's probably too obvious to mention, but since I am the master of all things obvious, I will: let's make sure that every driver conforms to as much as the Watir API as is reasonable. Ultimately, if we can have more than one driver then we should be able to use the same Watir scripts regardless of which browser/OS we're on. BTW, I just started the SafariWatir project on RubyForge: http://rubyforge.org/projects/safariwatir/ ___ Wtr-general mailing list Wtr-general@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
