I am implementing Serenity BDD to build an automation suite for a product. I want to be able to find elements by xpaths which will be evaluated during run time.
For example, I want something like:
#FindBy(label="First Name")
private WebElementFacade firstNameTextBox;
Finding an element by label 'First Name' will be the same as finding it by xpath
".//div[(contains(#class,'mdr_label mdr_caption') or contains(#class,'fieldItemLabel')) and contains(.,'First Name')]/following-sibling::div//input"
I don't want to really repeat this long xpath in every declaration. I use the Dojo framework and so I have no other locators to get these elements other than by xpaths.
So, how do I add a custom FindBy type?
Related
I am a beginner for the Cypress automation testing. I have gone through the good practice document for Cypress E2E where it suggests to use data-cy or data-test-id for element selection. This might be a simple and dumb question but I am really curious to know the answer from you guys. I tried googling but no luck.
Where exactly the data-cy or data-test-id attribute to the element to test can be added?
a. Do I have to checkout the code from the developers team, then add the attribute in there?
b. Can I use the invoke command in cypress (just like we can add/remove attr using invoke in jquery)?
c. Any other method?
If the option a. is your answer, then
what are the steps you follow?
Does the app code and testing code need to be in one project?
What hierarchy of element selection you follow?
(More info: I have frontend in Typescript and React, backend in sql, test project in cypress)
If data-cy or data-test-id attributes are not added to the elements in your project, you can not access the elements using these attributes.
Basically, it is a decision that team should take while developing front end application that all testable elements should have proper data-cy or data-test-id which gives more information about the element and it makes easy to write more stable and readable tests.
So I would suggest to discuss within a team to define strategy to add these attributes to the existing code and new code.
Read more about it at best practices for selecting elements in cypress
I am attempting to get the count of the //Root/Record elements using spring integrations int-xml:xpath-header-enricher. It comes back zero regardless of the document passed in.
You have to configure your XPath expression like this:
<int-xml:xpath-expression id="countExpression" expression="count(//ns:Ephemeris/ns:Record)"
ns-prefix="ns"
ns-uri="http://www.sandia.gov/pgmm/Ephemeris"/>
And have it as a reference from the <int-xml:header> instead.
The problem is that your root element in the XML comes with the xmlns="http://www.sandia.gov/pgmm/Ephemeris", so, there is no other way unless we honor namespaces in your source XML. For this purpose we introduce artificial prefix, even if your source XML does have then. We need that in XPath to properly distinguish elements based on some namespace.
I think default DocumentBuilderFactory just doesn't honor namespaces making your possible XPath expressions much horrible when it comes to several namespaces support.
I would like to ask if we can also achieved a Page/Window Object Model in AutoIT? Majority of my project assignment was on Web Automation and I'm using Selenium Webdriver with Framework uses Page Object Model. Currently, I'm assigned to a project for GUI automation. I like to implement this kind of approach also in AutoIT if feasible so that I can reuse the objects to other classes. We are planning to use AutoIT standalone. I noticed that most of the example available in the internet was the object created on each class/script.
Your insights are highly appreciated.
Thanks!
General:
That common approach of using the Page Object Model (POM) Design Pattern isn't quit good feasible with AutoIt. Of course you can create a object structure with AutoIt too, but it was not intended for the language. Anyway, some of the goals of POM can be achieved with the following example suggestion of a test structure.
Please notice:
Since you don't provide enough information about your application under test (AUT), I explain a basic structure. The implementation depends on your application (SWING/RCP, WinForm etc.). It's also important which tool support do you need for your page object recognition. Besides WinForm that could be controled by ControlCommand functions in AutoIt, it's a proper way to use UIASpy or au3_uiautomation as helper tools.
UIASpy - UI Automation Spy Tool
au3_uiautomation
It's an advantage to know the POM structure in context with Selenium. I usually include a test case description with behavior driven development BDD (Gherkin syntax with Cucumber or SpecFlow), but this will not be a part of that example here.
Example structure:
The structure consists of two applications under test Calc and VlcPlayer. Both follow the common structure PageObjects and Tests. You should try to devide your page objects (files) in many subfolders to keep an overview. This substructure should be similar for the Tests folder/subfolders.
In the Tests area you could include several test stages or test categories depending on your test goals (Acceptance/UI tests, just functional smoke tests and so on). It's also a good idea to control the execution order by an separat wrapper file, TestCaseExecutionOrder.au3. This should exist for all test categories to avoid a mixing of them.
This wrapper au3 file contains the function calls, it's the processing start/control.
Approach description:
TestCaseExecutionOrder.au3
Calls the functions which are the test cases in the subfolders (Menu, PlaylistContentArea, SideNavigation).
Test case NiceName consists of some test steps.
These test steps have to be included into that script/file by:
#include-once ; this line is optional
#include "Menu\OpenFolder.au3"
Test step OpenFolder.au3 (which is a part of a test case) contains the function(s) to do the folder loading and there content.
In that functions the PageObject MenuItemMedia.au3 will be loaded/included into the script/file by:
#include-once ; this line is optional
#include "..\..\..\PageObjects\Menu\MenuItemMedia.au3"
File MenuItemMedia.au3 should only contain the recognition mechanism for that area and actions.
This could be find menu item Media (as a function).
or find open folder menu item (as a function) and so on.
Func _findMenuItemMedia()
; do the recognition action
; ...
Return $oMenuItem
EndFunc
In the test step OpenFolder.au3 which calls _findMenuItemMedia() like:
Global $oMedia = _findMenuItemMedia()
can a .click executed or something like .getText etc.
The test cases should only #include the files which are necessary (test steps). The test steps should also only #include the necessary files (page objects) and so on. So it's possible to adjust the recognition functions once and it can be used in the corresponding test steps.
Conclusion:
Of course it's hard to explain it in this way, but with this approach you can do a similar way like in Selenium for web testing. Please notice that you properbly have to use Global variables often. You have to be ensure the correct includings and don't lose the overview of your test, which is in OOP test based approaches much easier.
I recommend the usage of VS Code, because you can jump from file to file at the #include statements. That's pretty handy.
I hope this will help you.
I was using a cucumber/ruby/capybara/siteprism framework and implementing the test pages at present. I've reached a point where there are a lot of radio buttons (over 20) per page in several pages, and I was thinking if there's really any benefit in trying to map all those as static elements in my page object model?
Ie, thinking about it, it seems much more convenient to just use the text of the radio button in the step definition and call the capybara 'choose' method directly, something like the following, so that I don't need to do anything else for those 20+ radio buttons, it should all just work by changing the parameter we're passing in the feature:
cucumber feature:
When I select that "I am over 18"
capybara step:
When /^I select that "(.*)"$/ |option|
choose(option)
Whereas with a page object model like siteprism, I guess the implementation would need to define and maintain all those elements independently in a format similar to:
element :over_18_button, :radio_button, "I am over 18"
element :over_12_button, :radio_button, "I am over 12"
etc x50times
And for using it, one should create the page, call the element, which doesn't seem as straight forward to me?
siteprism step:
When /^I select that "(.*)"$/ |option|
case option
when 'I am over 18'
over_18_button.click
when 'I am over 12'
over_12_button.click
I guess one could create 'elements' or a 'section' with an array to all the buttons, but then, we'll have to put extra logic to parse them and click on the relevant one anyway somewhere in the code, whilst it would be all done neatly and without the need for any extra code or maintenance with the 'choose' method from capybara.
Am I right to assume that in this example using Capybara is a better option?
or if it'd be better to define 'ALL' web elements in the page object model, what would the benefit of that be? and could the page object code be done in a different way to take advantage of any possible benefit?
That complicated case statement is unnecessary.
When /^I select that I am over "(\d\d)"$/ |age|
#page_object.select_age(age)
I'm not familiar with site_prism. My watir_drops gem would let you define everything with the same pattern like this:
element(:age_button) { |age| browser.radio_button(text: "I am over #{age}")
with this method in the page object:
def select_age(age)
age_button(age).set
end
We could also get into a whole long discussion on using declarative instead of imperative steps. Also, best practice Page Object usage avoids directly calling defined elements. Call methods that accomplish the business logic and those methods do all the implementation including element definitions and actions on them.
Old question but adding important missing info
The way in which site_prism works allows you to define your selector using anything that can be queried in Capybara. So if you want to define your radio using the text, you can do that. Or any other locating strategy you want to use.
Obviously traditionally I would advise using css locators (
element :my_radio, text: 'foo'), because they're easiest to debug and re-use. Furthermore the OP advised he had 50+ of these. If they were identical, they could be abstracted out into a Helper Module or he could even meta-program them in using a loop and index (If they followed a simple index_naming_pattern)
I am more familiar with Java and Selenium than Ruby and Capybara and SitePrism, so apologies if this question is rather thick.
Selenium has a very useful class for managing Select tags, Selenium::WebDriver::Support::Select, which can be created by passing it the Selenium Element (Selenium::WebDriver::Element) representing the select. I would like to get a Select object so I can use its convenient methods.
Using SitePrism and Capybara, however, the standard method of defining elements gives me access to a select modeled by Capybara's Element class, Capybara::Node::Element, and I can't seem to find an easy way to extract the underlying Selenium Element from the Capybara Element.
I've searched around for alternatives and found Capybara's #select method, but that seems very limiting to me, since it looks like it forces you to select by value and has very narrow parameters for defining the select on the page.
Is there an easy way to create a Selenium Select from SitePrism/Capybara? Or is there a better way of doing this entirely? Thanks!
Ah, I found it. It was right in Capybara::Node::Element all along. The #native method returns the native element from the driver. This can then be passed into the Selenium Select's initialize method to successfully create the Select.