I think it's a good idea. I used to use WinRunner TSL (I much prefer
using Watir by the way!) and it provided similar functionality. What
was different was that there was a global timeout setting that was
used, and the timeout value added to the operation would be added on
to the global timeout
On 6/8/06, Daniel Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatwas different was that there was a global timeout setting that wasused, and the timeout value added to the operation would be added onto the global timeout value.This was quite handy when testingrequirements such as a All web pages must be
Sure.
In WinRunner, there is a global timeout setting that is used for all
scripts. This was set via a menu option rather that programmatically.
In addition to this, in WinRunner TSL, most operations would take a
timeout value as a parameters e.g.
link_click(name, timeout)
two obvious problems:
you need to require reporter:
require 'test/unit/ui/reporter'
and you should require (and add to the suite) the class TC_1, not the
test method tc_1
as an aside, you can create your directory without requiring fileutils
using this single line:
Dir.mkdir('build/report')
On 6/8/06, Daniel Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does that make sense?Yes. Thanks for the explanation.
___
Wtr-general mailing list
Wtr-general@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-general
oops, forgot to mention you also need this require:
require 'test/unit/ui/console/testrunner'
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lillis, Dara
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:51 AM
To: wtr-general@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Wtr-general]
Hi,
Thanks for getting back to me.
This is where I am with comments
#require 'test/unit' #I was under the impression that this would
automatically import the two requires below
require 'test/unit/ui/reporter'
require 'test/unit/ui/console/testrunner'
require 'tc_1'
require 'tc_2'
class
As long as there is an option to disable, as was mentioned before,
then this is okay. But I want to make the case very strongly that the
option is necessary.
We are doing "screen scrapes", not tests. And in some of our
applications, the contents of the pages change dynamically, or based on
After considering this carefully, I would argue that this is a good
idea, but it should really be a different method with a different name.
1) Adding a non-optional parameter to the "exists?" method call would
break existing code.
2) This retry loop is really more of a "wait_for()" method
On 6/8/06, Lonny Eachus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After considering this carefully, I would argue that this is a good
idea, but it should really be a different method with a different name.
1) Adding a non-optional parameter to the exists? method call would
break existing code.
2) This
Hi,
I learnt about WATIR just few minutes ago. I am
looking at tools which helps me in automating a web
based product which uses lot of AJAX.
1.How does WATIR work with AJAX?
2.Has anyone done any comparison amongst products like
QTP, SIlktest, WATIR etc.
thanks for ur help.
--Prashanth
Bret Pettichord wrote:
Specifically, I propose that where you currently do this:
while
not ($ie.link(:text,"Second").exists?)
sleep 0.5
end
$ie.link(:text,"Second").click
You would instead just do this
$ie.link(:text,"Second").click
12 matches
Mail list logo
