I'm trying to get a text from a textfield with Get Text, but in some cases this field is optional and the robot crashes because it doesn't have anything in the field.
You have multiple options. It's hard to say which one fits best you so here is a pool of possible solutions:
when NOT using the Modern Design, you can easily use the Element exists activity, self explaining
if you use the Modern Design and miss old activities like Element exists, go to the filter dropdown and select Show Classic, this way you are now also able to choose Element exists
you could also wrap such failing activities into a Try Catch, then your process wont fail, but a Try Catch should always be the last way out
when using the Modern Design, you can try Find Element, if the returned object is empty you know that it was not found, make sure to set a proper Timeout here, otherwise you wait for 30 seconds
but on your case it could be better to use an Image exists or Find Image Matches as you said you are looking for text in a textfield, just inverse it and look for an empty textfield, and if you have no matches all is fine
But to be honest, I would go for the Element exists. Give this a try, but be aware that in the future this activity might be replaced by something else and your process will need a little bit of rework.
Related
I am recently brushing up my skills in TOSCA, I was working on it 2 years ago and switched to Selenium, I noticed that the new TOSCA allows identification using Xpath, and I am really familiar with it now, however, I cannot make it work in TOSCA and I am sure the object identification works because I am testing my xpath in google chrome developer tools.
Something as simple as (//*[text()='Forgot Password?'])[1] does not seem to be working. Could I be missing something?
This is the webpage I am using as reference for this example:
https://www.freecrm.com/index.html
XPath certainly can be used to identify elements of an HTML web UI in Tosca.
Since the question was originally posted, the "Forgot Password?" link at https://www.freecrm.com/index.html appears to have changed so that it's text is now "Forgot your password?" and is actually located at https://ui.freecrm.com/.
To account for that change, this answer uses "(//*[text()='Forgot your password?'])[1]" instead of the expression provided in the original post.
With the text modification, the expression works to idenfity the element in XScan after wrapping it in double quotes:
"(//*[text()='Forgot your password?'])[1]"
Some things to keep in mind when using XPath in Tosca:
It seems that XPath expressions need to be wrapped in double quotes (") so that XScan knows when to start evaluating XPath instead of using its normal rules. Looking closely at the expression that is pregenerated when XScan starts, we see that it is wrapped in double quotes:
"id('ui')/div[1]/div[1]/div[1]/a[1]"
A valid XPath expression doesn't necessarily guarantee uniqueness, so it is helpful to pay attention to any feedback messages at the bottom of XScan. There is a significant difference between "The selected element was not found" and "The selected element is not unique". The former simply indicates XScan can't find a match, the latter indicates that XScan matches successfully, but cannot uniquely identify the element.
My experience has been that it helps to explicitly identify the element to reduce the possibility of ambiguity. If the idea is to target the anchor element in order for tests to click a link, then reducing scope from any element i.e. "(//*[text()='Forgot your Password?'])[1]" to only match anchor elements with that text "//a[text()='Forgot your password?']".
In general, Tricentis (or at least the trainers with whom I have spoken) recommends using methods other than XPath to identify a target if they are available. That said, in my experience I've had better luck with XPath than with "Identify by Anchor".
An XPath expression is visible and editable in the XModuleAttribute properties without having to rescan. Personally, I find it easier to work with than the XML value of the RelativeId property that is generated when using Identify by Anchor.
With Anchor, I've had issues where XModuleAttributes scanned in one browser can no longer be found when switching to another browser, specifically from IE to Chrome. With XPath, I've not had these issues.
While XPath works well to identify the properties of one element with attributes of another because it can identify the relationship between them (very common with controls in Angular applications), the same can often be accomplished by adapting the engine layer using the TBox API (i.e. building a custom control). This requires some initial work up front from developer resources, but it can significantly improve how tests steer these controls in addition to reducing the need for Automation Specialists to have to rely on XPath.
What I know is that you can identify elements with XPath when working with XML messages in Tosca API testing. Your use case seems to be UI testing, but I am not sure about that.
Did you try to use XScan to scan the page? Usually Tosca automatically calculates an XPath expression for you that you can use immediately.
Please see the manual for details.
If it still does not work please try to be more specific? What isn't working? Error message? Unexpected behavior? ...
Tosca provides its set of attributes for locating any type of elements. You can directly select any number of attributes you want to make your element unique along with index of that element. Just make sure that you are not using any dynamic values in 'id' or 'class-name' of that element, also the index range is not so large like 20 out of 100; it could be 5 out of 10, which will be helpful if you need to update it in future.
Also take help of parent elements which will be uniquely located easily and then locate your expected element.
TOSCA provide various ways to locate an element just like selenium plus in addition it will provide other properties also.Under transition properties you will find x path and it will be absolute x path since you know selenium you know the difference between absolute and relative x path. I would suggest you to go with.
1.Identify by ID OR name
2. Identify by anchor
if your relative x path is not working
Try load all properties on the right side bottom. But it showed for me without clicking on it. See here
I have very recently answered to the question about Creating TreeView with nodes and checkboxes.
While I was pondering how to properly process the case when treeview's node is checked when user pressing spacebar I ran into TVN_KEYDOWN notification.
My solution was tested in a dialog box and in a window procedure and both seem to work flawlessly.
Still, I have a dilemma of what should be my returned result. Here is the relevant excerpt from the documentation for TVN_KEYDOWN:
Return value
If the wVKey member of lParam is a character key code, the character
will be used as part of an incremental search. Return nonzero to
exclude the character from the incremental search, or zero to include
the character in the search. For all other keys, the return value is
ignored.
I have tried returning both results when testing if spacebar is pressed and haven't noticed any difference.
So I ask you the following questions:
Can someone explain me what is the incremental search ?
What is the difference when I include or exclude the tested character (spacebar) from incremental search ?
EDIT:
It seems that I have found an answer to first question. I have found an article on Wikipedia that explains what incremental search is.
It leaves only the second question to be answered.
END OF EDIT
Thank you.
Best regards.
It is most visible in a giant TreeView. The best example of one is the left panel in Regedit.exe. Expand HKCR and start typing to see the effect.
The implementation has changed across Windows versions, it used to be a lot less usable in XP. It is a UI blooper, there isn't any good way for the user to see that he mistyped a letter, to correct a typing mistake or to see that a search starts from scratch. Current versions of Windows use a timeout, automatically resetting the partially typed search phrase when you don't hit a key for a couple of seconds. Which is about as practical as it gets. It is certainly useful, just not very usable.
The only sane thing to do with TVN_KEYDOWN is nothing. Never add more ways to make it less predictable than it already is. Intentionally swallowing a keystroke of course makes it a lot less usable if it is a key the user really wanted to use. You certainly don't want to swallow a space, that's of course a valid character in tree node text. If the tree happens to not have any nodes with text that contains a space then you still don't want to swallow it, the control itself already does.
The notification would have been a lot more useful if it also passed the incremental search string that was collected or give a way to reset it. It just doesn't so that's water under the bridge. Consider handling it if you've created some kind of usability trap, very hard to come up with a practical example of one. You know it when you see it.
The only real use is to completely replace the search function. You'd then make your own rules and select a node yourself. And of course always return a non-zero value.
You want only answer to the second question, so this is:
If you exclude spacebar from incremental search, you dont find trewview item with spacebar.
Note: You must disable TVS_CHECKBOXES style, because treeview wndproc handle spacebar different with this style set.
In general how does one test a various parts of a GUI? What are good practices? (Yes I am being overly general here).
Let take for Notepad's Find dialog box:
Notepad's Find dialog box http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/5483/imgp.png
What are some things that can be tested? How does one know its working correctly? What are edge cases to look out for? Stress tests?
Here.
I doubt any good generalization can be made about this - it always depends on the situation.
When someone asks for tests for GUI I always assume that that mean 'this part of application that is accessible via this GUI'. Otherwise it would mean testing the only the GUI without any logic hooked. Dunno why no one never actually asked for testing if the events are fired when button is pressed or is displayed window acquiring focus.
Anyway back to the question. First of all find out about equivalence classes, boundary conditions other testing techniques. Than try to apply it for given problem. Than try to be creative.
All those should be applied when creating following tests:
1) happy path tests - application acts right when given input is good
2) negative tests - application acts right when given input is bad
3) psychotic user behavior (I saw someone use this term, and I find it to be great) - that one user that has nothing better to do than break your application or is to stupid to actually know how bad and horrible things he is doing with your app.
After all this if all tests are passing and you can't figure out other, than you don't know is it working properly, but you can say that it passed all tests and it seems to be working correctly.
As for given GUI example.
1)
Is the application finding string that is in opened file?
Is the application finding character that is in opened file?
How is it reacting to reaching end of file during search?
Is it finding other appearances of given string/character or just one, when there are many of those appearances ?
Is it handling special search characters like * or ? correctly?
Is it searching in desired direction?
Is it 'Mach case ' option working properly?
When opening find setting some criteria, canceling search and launching it again - are search criteria back to default values? Or are they set as you left them when clicking Cancel?
2)
Is it informing user that no mach was found when trying to search for data that is not in opened file?
Is it reacting properly when trying to search down form end of file?
Is it reacting properly when trying to search up form beginning of file?
How search feature is reacting when no file is loaded? (in MS notepad it can be done, but in other editors you can launch editor without opening a file hence this test)
Can I mark both Up and Downs search direction?
3)
Is it working properly on 4GB file?
Can I load 4 GB string in 'Find What:' field and search for it?
Can I provide as input special characters by providing ASCII codes? (it was done like pressing Alt and number of character... or something like that)
Can I search for empty character (there was something like that in character table).
Can I search for characters like end of line or CarretReturn?
Will it search for characters form different languages? (Chinese, or other non-english alphabet characters)
Can I inject something like ') DROP ALL TABLES; (if that would be web based search).
Will I be able to launch proper event twice by really fast double click on search button? (easier on web apps)
With reasonable test suite you know it seems to work correctly.
I think it is better to separate out functional aspects and the usability aspects for the GUI testing.
Let us say in the above example take the use case of user entering some text and hitting the Find button. From the functional aspect I would say your tests should check whether this user action (event) calls the appropriate event handler methods. These can be automated if your code has good separation between the GUI display code and the
functional part.
Testing of usability aspect would involve checking things like whether the display occurs correctly in multiple platforms. I think this needs to be verified manually. But I think there are some tools that automate this kind of GUI testing as well but I've no experience with them.
It's difficult and error-prone to test finished UIs.
But if you are more interested form the programmer's perspective, please have a read of the paper The Humble Dialog. It presents an architecture for creating UIs whose functionality can be tested in code using standard testing frameworks.
Very simple question: should a dropdown list be used to populate state abbreviations? From my experience, I think most e-commerce sites do this so I would expect that it's acceptable. However, Jakob Nielsen has something to say about this.
I think I disagree; I use the tab key then type the first letter of my state. Heck, even if it wasn't the first entry, I've done this enough times, I would hit the letter repeatedly and get to what I need. I never need the scroll wheel or mouse.
Is there any additional concrete guidance out there on this particular question?
I think this will become less of an issue now that most modern browsers scroll the drop down lists based on each consecutive letter you type, not just reading the first letter as they once did. So, If you type N-Y, the drop down list will scroll directly to NY and you do not have to hit N a bunch of times.
Since a state is a two letter abbreviation, I wouldn't put a drop downlist, I would put a textbox, but I would validate it using AJAX or Javascript to warn the user about an error, right after he entered something wrong.
DropDown / Auto-completion (in my opinion) is useful when the data to enter is longer / more error-prone.
If you insist on using auto-completion or dropdown, you should put long state names, not just the abbrev.
I don't know about concrete guidance, but one alternative I would consider is using an autocomplete text box that forces you to choose from one of the available choices. I agree that a 50-item drop down list is too long and using autocomplete with enforced choice accomplishes the same purpose -- consistent data -- and has the advantage that it is much easier for the user to navigate. If you don't want to limit the choices to just US states you could drop the enforced choice and just let the autocomplete work as a suggestion with the user being able to enter free-form input.
EDIT: As #Martin suggests, I would probably have the autocomplete show the full state name, even if it only entered the abbreviation. This would solve issues of people getting the abbreviation wrong as well, though you could do the same thing in a drop down -- display the name with the abbreviation as the value.
I was going to post NYSystemsAnalyst's answer, but he beat me. I will instead add a caveat... If you use a dropdown list, it must be complete. Do not forget the obvious DC, or the less common but plausible PR or AE/AA/AP, or the rather improbable but still valid AS, FM, MH, MP, PW, and VI.
The official list
I think it depends on if you are asking a user to enter their own address or someone else's address (ship to address). Everyone knows their own state abbreviation, but may know all the state abbreviations.
So for entering your own address a textbox is the quickest and easiest way, but if you are asking the user to potentially enter someone else's address a drop down is probably best.
Of course, if you site has a combination of both types of address, you want your UI to be consistent and use the drop down for both. Also, if you are using a drop down, I would suggest using the state abbreviation and name (AZ - Arizona) when the drop down is expanded (but just show the abbreviation when it is collapsed).
I'm willing to bet that half the users of online e-commerce sites don't know the abbreviations for the states. Think if you're shipping a gift to someone and you can't remember whether its MS, MO or MI. Dropdowns are fine.
I've never had an issue with state drop down boxes (and this is from someone routinely at the bottom in West Virginia). I've gotten into the habit of just tabbing and pressing W and then it will either recognize the "E" and give me the correct state, or it will not recognize the "E" and then I have to hit the down key once or twice (depending on sort order) to get the proper state.
So all in all I am looking at 5 key presses max to get to my state. I don't think it's that bad.
How about a textbox with validation, and a drop-down list if the state abbreviation is invalid?
I've long thought (but never practiced for some reason) that a dropdown menu that is dynamically generated and only contains one item, should automatically select that item. This would opposed to the typical approach that I've observed where a blank entry is made at the top and you still have to interact with the menu to make the single available selection.
An example is when I login to my online banking and select "View Paper Statements". I've only got one account so the next step in the process is to present me with a dropdown where I have to select that single account to proceed. In this case, by implementing the solution above, it would take one less click to select the account and proceed to viewing it. Even better in this case would be to eliminate the dropdown menu step altogether and go right to the statement.
Can you think of a case where auto-select of a single item would produce undesirable results?
Can you think of a case where auto-select of a single item would produce undesirable results?
Yes - any case where the user has the option not to select any option.
In your bank account example, pre-selecting the only value makes sense. But if you have e.g. some kind of form where users can provide voluntary information, they will need the possiblity to leave that field blank or otherwise give a possible incorrect answer.
So it really should depend on the nature of the data in that dropdown whether pre-selection is a good idea or not.
I completely agree, in the case you describe. But there are times where you want to force the user to make a selection actively -- e.g., when the value of the field is somehow optional or additive.
In your case, without selecting an account, there's probably no useful way to proceed, so automatic selection does make sense. But for example, an application I'm working on allows the user to specify a number of descriptive fields (movie metadata, basically -- title, release year, genre, etc.), many of which are optional, and some of them are represented by drop-down menus. Allowing the user to leave the default selection blank lets him tell us, effectively, "I don't want to use this field," so we leave it blank, and the data remains clean.
Just one example, although you're right -- in your case, I can see how that'd be annoying. :)
If there is truly only one possibility you shouldn't ask a user to decide between Option A. (Bad grammar to illustrate the point)
If the field can be left blank, it's not an option with a single answer. Instead you have a choice between Option A "meaningful data" and Option B "".
Iif list has blank option but the form does not allow that to be blank, it's a choice between Option A. (Bad grammar to illustrate the point)
Sometimes you want the user to explicitly select an option, even when it's the only option. If the option is selected automatically, the user may never even realise it, even though they may not be happy with the result.
For example, I'm reviewing my savings account on my internet bank site. Then I go to set up a payment. As it happens, I'm not allowed to make payments from my savings account, so the payment form automatically selects my only other account. If I don't notice this then I will end up making the payment from my other account when I was expecting to use my savings account. If I had known, I wouldn't have made the payment at all.
Perhaps this is slightly contrived. But unless you can be certain that the user will be happy with the (only) choice, you should ensure that they choose it explicitly.
I agree. If there's only one item in the dropdown and it's required that the user select something, then just default to the single item. I can't think of any negative effects of this (but I'm certainly not a UI expert)
What I like to do in this instance depends on a few factors.
If the dropdown is a required field and ends up with only one item due to dynamic generation, I try to avoid displaying it as a dropdown entirely. I end up showing it as an uneditable text field instead (or not displaying it at all if it isn't necessary). Why make it even look like it's a choice when it isn't?
If the dropdown is not required, then it makes total sense to display a blank choice in addition to the single value.
If it's REQ and there's a single record/value .. I'd try and change the control to a Display field rather than the Drop Down.