In my QTP keywrord driven automation, I would like to open browser and then automatically call all functions on that browser. I noticed it does work even when the browser title changes but I am not sure whether its coincidence or not.
I would need to open browser with e.g. ID and then simply call Browser("MyID"). functions. Is there any way or I can rely on QTP even when the browser changes its name?
QTP doesn't use the title to identify the browser, the description usually is based on when the browser was created (see the Creation Time ordinal identifier). So if the state of your machine is the same (no other browsers were open before beginning to test) then the identification should be consistent.
During your testing, if there's only one Browser window open all the time , then
Just adding a "Browser" object in your OR , without any identification property would work.
If there are multiple browsers open, then you might have to add one or more of
Name
Title
Creation time.
Avoid using Creation time though.
Related
I want to create a straightforward extension for Firefox.
User hovers over some word on any page
Pull the dictionary definition of that word from a file inside the extension
Display it while still hovered
I am new to Firefox add-ons and WebExtensions, so here's what I'm wondering:
I want the dictionary file(s) used by the extension to be local, instead of referring to some online website each time.
Any given user might be interested in a different part of the entire dictionary (it contains entries in different languages, users might only want their own 1 or 2 languages) so I want to avoid forcing every user to download the entire dictionary base.
The way I have seen similar add-ons handle that before Firefox 5.* is that they offer the search-and-display add-on separately from the dictionary files which are each available as add-ons in their own right, only actually doing stuff if you have the master add-on installed.
However, none of those examples seem to have been updated for the WebExtensions API and do not support more recent versions of Firefox.
I have also been unable to find how to communicate between web extensions so far.
My question being, how can I share information between 2 or more coorperating extensions to achieve what I described.
And actually, if this seems really stupid for some reason I'm unaware of, do point out any more reasonable alternatives that allow me to handle the dictionary files separately from the main extension.
Possibly related questions I found:
Communicating between 2 Firefox Add-Ons (Cross-Extension Communication)
This one is from 2010 however, thus out of date as far as I could tell.
Mozilla Addon Development - Communicating between windows with different domains
Kind of a similar situation, but they want to pull the definitions from an online source, rather than a local one.
The closest thing I found on the Mozilla browser extension website is communicating between add-on and some native applications, not quite what I need I think.
Communicating between add-ons is a normal part of the functionality of runtime.sendMessage(), runtime.connect(), runtime.onMessage, and runtime.onConnect.
Both runtime.sendMessage() and runtime.connect() have as their optional first parameter:
extensionId
For runtime.sendMessage(), this is:
string. The ID of the extension to send the message to. Include this to send the message to a different extension. If the intended recipient has set an ID explicitly using the applications key in manifest.json, then extensionId should have that value. Otherwise it should have the ID that was generated for the intended recipient.
If extensionId is omitted, the message will be sent to your own extension.
For runtime.connect(), this is:
string. The ID of the extension to connect to. If the target has set an ID explicitly using the applications key in manifest.json, then extensionId should have that value. Otherwise it should be have the ID that was generated for the target.
Both runtime.onMessage, and runtime.onConnect provide a sender property or parameter, either with the message, or as part of the port. This parameter/property is a runtime.MessageSender which includes an id property which is:
id
string. The ID of the extension that sent the message, if the message was sent by an extension. If the sender set an ID explicitly using the applications key in manifest.json, then id will have this value. Otherwise it will have the ID that was generated for the sender.
Note that in Firefox, before version 54, this value was the extension's internal ID (that is, the UUID that appears in the extension's URL).
.
Hey guys,
I have a strange behaviour and am wondering why this happens:
My managed bean holds three values (selected plant, selected year and selected month). When opening the required page a #PostConstruct method is called and initializes the plant data according to the selected/pre defined plant, year and month. When changing one of these three options data should be updated and displayed via AJAX request. In order to switch to edit mode I can click my button and change one value from true to fals which is indicating whether the page should be displayed in view or edit mode.
Now here is my problem:
My local Weblogic Server (IntegratedWeblogicServer - standard configuration) works as expected. I open the page, see my current data, switch to edit mode, edit & save it. That's all. Works like a charm.
The productive Weblogic Server (configured by a colleague of mine) does some kind of cache I think. I open the page, see my current data, change year value to last year and see the updated values. When clicking on the "edit" button the old values are displayed instead of the updated values. This just happens as long as I do not switch the plant. My current workaround looks like this: open the page, switch the plant and then switch the year. After switching the plant everything works like expected. I can't figure out why the productive machine behaves different than the local machine. Each of the update methods setPlant(), setYear() and setMonth() call refreshValues() and are equal requading JSF definitions. So I don't know if it's a caching problem or maybe a Weblogic configuration problem.
Let me know if you need more information or certain code snippets. I excluded them as it is a lot of code.
Kind regards,
Stefi
Enable http headers debug from browser and monitor the difference in each environment. Also monitor the access.log on each domains server.
Extension Link: https://www.dephormation.org.uk/?page=81
This plugin is great. It has one problem though, on pages that use AJAX to make http requests, it switches the user agent for each request and confuses many ajax applications.
What I want to do is figure out where the preferences for this plugin are saved. Particularly, where all the User-Agent Strings that are currently being used are located. I would like to do this so that I could edit these settings outside of firefox before I open the browser so as to "hot swap" one user agent string for each browsing session at a time. I have looked through all kinds of .sqlite databases in my firefox profile but still haven't found the information.
I am using Watir-Webdriver with ruby to application test.
As Mr Palant said... simply changing general.useragent.override would achieve what you want.
Type about:config in the address bar, accept the warning, and filter on useragent and you'll see the setting.
I gather (but haven't tested) this preference may not affect the user agent presented to client side Javascript code. So if your Ajax code references navigator.useragent you might find the real user agent is returned despite your override setting.
Pete (author of SecretAgent).
www.secretagent.org.uk
PS See also
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Document_Object_Model_%28DOM%29/window.navigator.userAgent
You don't need an add-on for that - changing general.useragent.override preference (create it if not present yet) is enough to set a different user agent string. In Firefox you can do it under about:config, when Firefox isn't running you can add this preference to the file prefs.js in the Firefox profile.
I have written a Firefox extension that catches when a particular URL is entered and does some stuff. My main app launches Firefox with this URL. The URL contains sensitive information so I don't want it being stored in the history.
I'm concerned about the case where the extension is not installed. If its not installed and Firefox gets launched with the sensitive URL, it will get stored in history and there's nothing I can do about it. So my idea is to use a bookmarklet.
I will launch Firefox with "javascript:window.location.href='pleaseinstallthisplugin.html'; sensitiveinfo='blahblah'".
If the extension is not installed they will get redirected to a page that tells them to install it and the sensitive info won't get stored in the history. If the extension IS installed it will grab the information in the sensitiveinfo variable and do its thing.
My question is, can the bookmarklet call a method in the extension to pass the sensitive info (and if so, how) or can the extension catch when javascript is being called in the bookmarklet?
How can a bookmarklet and Firefox extension communicate?
p.s. The alternative means of getting around this situation would be for my main app to launch Firefox and communicate with the extension using sockets but I am loath to do that because I've run into too many issues over the years with users with crazy firewalls blocking socket communication. I'd like to do everything without sockets if possible.
As far as I know, bookmarklets can never access chrome files (extensions).
Bookmarklets are executed in the scope of the current document, which is almost always a content document. However, if you are passing it in via the command line, it seems to work:
/Applications/Namoroka.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin javascript:alert\(Components\)
Accessing Components would throw if it was not allowed, but the alert displays the proper object.
You could use unsafeWindow to inject a global. You can add a mere property so that your bookmarklet only needs to detect whether the global is defined or not, but you should know that, as far as I know, there is no way to prohibit sites in a non-bookmarklet context from also sniffing for this same global (since it may be a privacy concern to some that sites can detect whether they are using the extension). I have confirmed in my own add-on which injects a global in a manner similar to that below that it does work in a bookmarklet as well as regular site context.
If you register an nsIObserver, e.g., where content-document-global-created is the topic, and then unwrap the subject, you can inject your global (see this if you need to inject something more sophisticated like an object with methods).
Here is some (untested) code which should do the trick:
var observerService = Cc['#mozilla.org/observer-service;1'].getService(Ci.nsIObserverService);
observerService.addObserver({observe: function (subject, topic, data) {
var unsafeWindow = XPCNativeWrapper.unwrap(subject);
unsafeWindow.myGlobal = true;
}}, 'content-document-global-created', false);
See this and this if you want an apparently easier way in an SDK add-on (not sure whether SDK postMessage communication would work as an alternative but with the apparently same concern that this would be exposed to non-bookmarklet contexts (i.e., regular websites) as well).
Vista puts out a new security preventing Session 0 from accessing hardware like the video card, and the user no longer logs into session 0. I know this means that I cannot show the user a GUI, however, does that also mean I can't show one at all? The way my code is set up right now, it would be more work to make it command line only, however if I can use my existing code and just programmatically manage the GUI it would take a lot less code.
Is this possible?
The article from MSDN says this:
• A service attempts to create a user interface (UI), such as a dialog box, in Session 0. Because the user is not running in Session 0, he or she never sees the UI and therefore cannot provide the input that the service is looking for. The service appears to stop functioning because it is waiting for a user response that does not occur.
Which makes me think it is possible to have an automated UI, but someone told me that you couldn't use SendKeys with a service because it was disabled in Session 0.
EDIT: I don't actually need to show the user the GUI
You can show one; it just doesn't show up.
There is a little notification in the taskbar about there being a GUI window and a way to switch to it.
Anyway, there actually is a TerminalServices API command to switch active session that you could call if you really needed it to show up.
You can write a separate process which provides the UI for your service process. The communication between your UI and service process can be done in various ways (search the web for "inter process communication" or "IPC").
Your service can have a GUI. It's simply that no human will ever see it. As the MSDN quote suggests, a service can display a dialog box. The call to MessageBox won't fail; it just won't ever return — there won't be anyone to press its buttons.
I'm not sure what you mean by wanting to "manage the GUI." Do you actually mean pretending to send input to the controls, as with SendInput? I see no reason that it wouldn't be possible; you'd be injecting input into your own program's queue, after all, and SendInput's Vista-specific warnings don't say anything about that. But I think you'd be making things much more complicated than they need to be. Revisit the idea to alter your program to have no UI at all. (That's not the same as having a console program. Consoles are UI.)
Instead of simulating the mouse messages necessary to click a button, for instance, eliminate the middle-man and simply call directly the function that the button-click event would have called.