> 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
