Is there any way i can implement two stepts like this(see below) in a single function:
When I click on the "Button_name" button
When I click on the "Link_name" name
Is there any syntax so the cucumber won't care what will come after the string and on these two steps i will not need to make two different functions?
Usually i will implement them separately with something like this:
#When("^I look at the \"([^\"]*)\" button$")
public void smt (String smt){ }
Yes, you could implement one step with one method, and pass what was clicked as an argument to that method.
However, this will make your test code more complicated. So please consider whether you should. Having complicated logic in your test code, will make your tests harder to understand and maintain, thus defeating their purpose imho.
If you want to reuse common functionality, the recommendation is to write helper methods that you can call from your step definition.
For example:
#When ("I click on the {string} button")
public void clickButton(String button) {
clickButton(button);
}
#When ("I click on the "Link_name" name")
public void clickLink(String link) {
clickLink(link);
}
and implement clickButton() and clickLink() to click a button or link respectively. (I've used different clickButton() and clickLink() methods in this example, because iirc these would use different types of elements.)
If needed (or you really want to use a switch) you could use a switch statement to get use the right selector based on the button or link name.
Alternatively, you could implement page objects, add all the relevant selectors for the page object there and call the method on the relevant page object that click that particular link/button, delegating the logic to interact with the UI to the page objects and calling this logic from your step definitions.
If are different context one click button and other click link, the best practices is to have two different steps.
One of the bad practices of using BDD is to think about reusing code within steps.
When you have a lot of logic inside a step, any modification can affect many tests.
Should be concerned about code reuse in page objects.
Related
I have multiple buttons and form inputs in one page. All these buttons and form inputs need to be disabled or enabled depending on a condition.
I know that it is possible to use the disabled keyword inside a tag to disable a specific input or button. Also, I can just add the code
:disabled="true"
to disable the inputs depending of the boolean value of a variable.
However, this solution is not acceptable for me, since I will have to add this line of code to every inputs on my page (I may create new pages in the future, containing as many inputs).
I would like to know if there's a way that allows me to simply disable the parent container of all the inputs so that the children item (the inputs) are disabled.
If you inspect the Vue instance itself of the VM when running your code you can have something like this when you console.log(this),
It will give you output similar to this if you use the correct scope:
{
$attrs
$options
.......
$el
}
Inside $el there's object properties for accessing firsElementChild, previousElementChild, previousElementSibling, etc. There's a lot of HTML related properties, however, accessing HTML element this way can get messy pretty fast. I think that your best solution is the one you already mentioned or changing the CSS class dynamically.
If you use v-if to conditional render on a parent you can achieve pretty similar functionality too.
See: Conditional rendering
I am creating a winRt app. In which I am having a Home.xaml page which having a another page called Market.xaml. So for snapped mode the same code is repeated.
Now my itemListView (used for snapped) and itemGridView (for full view) both have this page (Market)
<views:Market x:Name="viewMarket"/>
And the constructor of this page is called twice which I not want.
So do I use some flag kind of thing or some better approach is there.
Thanks
So, let's talk about this:
XAML is basically a varying syntax to C#. So, when XAML references a control like your views:Market with <Views:Market />, you are actually putting in something like new Views.Market() in both places. Basically, invoking the class twice. Should the constructor not fire twice, the time-space continuum would split in half. Dogs and cats living together, the whole 9 yards.
But, more fundamental here, what is the purpose of the constructor in C#, or in a XAML class? Is to do expensive things that you would not want to repeat? No. The reason for this is because the completion of the constructor is necessary before the UI thread is released and allowed to render the control. The resulting effect is a UI hang.
Moreover, the C# constructor is a synchronous method. It cannot properly invoke or hold asynchronous operations. This means long-running or expensive tasks that should be invoked immediately, should not be invoked in the constructor because it would also require them to be synchronous and UI-blocking. It is because of these last two points I suspect your constructor is being misused.
The solution is in the XAML framework. The XAML Page pipeline includes the constructor (since it is a C# class and they all have it) but it also includes a Loaded event. In many cases, the hard work necessary to fill page controls is in the Loaded handler. This allows the page to render properly, then starts the long-running action that will ultimately and asynchronously update control content.
In WinRT, the Page pipeline also includes an OnNavigatedTo() virtual method in the base that you can override to the same effect. In the override you can include the hard work of talking to a service, deserializing from a file, or whatever you need to make your UI work. Both the Loaded event and the override can be asynchronous, and neither prevent rendering by freezing the constructor.
But, there's another thing to consider since we're in C# and that the rather common pattern called singleton that allows for us to reference a type in two different contexts but without creating a brand new class. This is accomplished by making the class constructor private, but exposing a public property usually called Instance that returns a single, shared instances in some static place.
That might solve your problem already. Then again, none of that is probably what you need. Assuming you already know all that, the quick answer is you can't prevent a constructor because a constructor is necessary to create a new instantiation of any class, including a XAML view. Instead, whatever you are trying to prevent being double might need to be a combination of the discussions above. An offloaded method, and a static reference to prevent duplicate efforts.
Something like this:
public class Market : UserControl
{
public Market()
{
Loaded += Market_Loaded;
}
static bool AlreadyLoaded = false;
void Market_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
if (AlreadyLoaded)
return;
AlreadyLoaded = true;
// TODO: your work
}
}
But that might not do it for you because the static variable is scoped too large. Instead, you can control if it does the big operation with a dependency property you add to your control. With a boolean dependency property set to false, the second control knows not to do something. With it set to true, the first knows to go ahead. And, so on. This prevents all future use of the view or user control in your app from thinking it should not run because of the static property in the above solution. Then again, that might be perfect.
Best of luck!
I have implemented a TabBarController much like the Conference tutorial for iOS. Everything is working well now except it appears that the Init methods on Viewmodels for the tabs never get called as it normally would.
Is there something I forgot to do to ensure that Init is called? If I must, I could move this code to the constructor of the ViewModel, but I'd like to avoid this if possible.
EDIT
I guess what I'm really asking here is if I manually instantiate a viewmodel and "create" a view from it via the extension/helper methods, will init get called at some point in the process? If so, at what point can I expect init to get called on the viewmodel?
The Construction-Initialize-ReloadState-Start (C-I-R-S) sequence is called on an MvxViewModel if it is created using the default ViewModel locator - which is what happens when you call ShowViewModel.
If the ViewModels for the sub-tabs are created by calling new on a ViewModel directly - like in the Conference HomeViewModel.cs#L11 - then obviously this same sequence doesn't happen.
Really the difference here is between:
the tab ViewModels which are just INotifyPropertyChanged objects
the page-level MvxViewModels which are also INotifyPropertyChanged objects, but which you further expect to be initialized within navigations.
If you wanted to unify the two concepts then you probably could... but actually I suspect it might be simpler and cleaner to perhaps give the two class types different names, to just put the init code in the constuctor for the tab view models, or perhaps to just call Init on them yourself in the Home constructor.
I have a simple ContactEditPanel which contains a form and a number of textfields. Up until now I included an AjaxSubmitLink in this panel which, if the form content is valid, saves/updates the Contact instance contained in the Panel model. So far so simple. However now I'd like to remove the link in order that I may, depending on the context in which I use the ContactEditPanel, place the submit link at different levels of my overall component hierarchy. For instance in one context I'd like to use to flip between ContactEditPanel and ContactViewPanel with a bar of actions above the current view (edit | save , cancel). Another context would be to use ContactEditPanel in a standalone way (maybe part of a multi-step process) with just a save link below.
I was contemplating refactoring my ContactEditPanel to extends FormComponentPanel rather than Panel as described here but I'm not sure whether this is the right approach and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Any help would be most appreciated!
Many Thanks,
A
Your using the panel like a FormComponent so extend FormComponentPanel, it will allow you to keep all the validation you write contained to the component and also allow you to reuse it as you wish.
Just think of it as you've created a new FormComponent, like a TextField or DropDownChoice.
** New EDIT **
so what I'm trying to do is this.
I want the to add new form elements generated by my module on the product view of the following url
http://magento.example.com/catalog/product/view/id/46
ultimately these elements will be determined to show up by a related table in my module
I expected that if I extended Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View in my module as shown below I would be able to create a block in the product form that would contain such form fields, only if he are in the related table in my module
so I created a test.phtml file in
app/design/frontend/default/default/templates/<module>/test.phtml
then as you can see in my the View.php file described bellow I built the block and displayed it in the product view.
It did appear but 5 times too many. from the answers below this is normal so that answers the question as to why the it shows up five times but leaves the question what is the proper way to proceecd since this plan is not going to work
** End New Edit **
in my module I call _prepareLayout() and it does this 5 times when i pull up the page
here's my code
in
/app/code/local/Namespace/Module/Product/Veiw.php
class <Namespace>_<module>_Block_Product_View extends Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View {
protected function _toHtml() {
return parent::_toHtml();
}
public function _prepareLayout() {
$block = $this->getLayout()->createBlock(
'Mage_Core_Block_Template',
'my_block_name_here',
array('template' => '<module>/test.phtml')
);
if ($block){
$this->getLayout()->getBlock('content')->insert($block)->toHtml();
}else{
echo "no block";
}
return parent::_prepareLayout();
}
}
NOTE:
I just noticed this also takes away the price availability qty and add to cart button. which is also a problem
EDIT
First I want to thank you all for your answers. Second i want to give you more context
the reason for choosing to do this in the module is that I don't want the block to show up on every product . What i have is a table of what I'll call custom options containing properties of the product sort of like hair color height weight etc and depending on what set of properties are attached to the product (if any) will depend on what html content will show up on the page.
so in one case it my get a drop down menu and in another case it may get an input box. the other very important piece is that this must be setup so that I can give the end result out as a module that can be installed and not worrry that it won't show up if someone upgrades there magento
that said does it still make sense to do this all in the xml file ?
It seems to me that your code is overriding a core Magento module in order to achieve what could be easily done in the layout xml configuration. I would strongly recommend the follwing:
Use the built-in configuration mechanisms (e.g. layout xml - read Alan's excellent tutorial here) instead of writing code whenever possible.
Don't override the core code
if you must change the behaviour of the core code, use an Observer rather than Rewrite/Override
if you absolutely must Override, always call parent::whatever()
For example, if you create a <module>.xml layout file in your theme (app/design/frontend/default/<theme>/layout), you could use the following code:
<catalog_product_view>
<reference name="content">
<block type="module/block" name"my_block_name_here" template="module/test.phtml"/>
</reference>
</catalog_product_view>
You would then need to use a getChildHtml('my_block_name_here'); call within your phtml to position the block.
So unless there is other functionality happening inside your _prepareLayout, there's no need to override the core, or even to override the default catalog.xml.
EDIT (small edit above)
So now in your Block (I would recommend that you call it Namespace_Module_Block_Product_Customattributes or something like that), you are not overriding the core Product_View block, but merely processing your logic for what html widgets to use to render your custom attributes. Leave the rest of the tier prices, add to cart, other generic product block code, etc to Magento to work out.
If you are worried about the upgrade path for your module's users, you should definitely NOT be overriding core code. Use the configuration approach and very selectively introduce code that "plays nice" with the system rather than try to boss it around with overrides.
I took a look at a stock Magento install of CE 1.4.1, and unmodified the _prepareLayout method is called six times when loading the URL
http://magento.example.com/catalog/product/view/id/46
That's because the class is instantiated six times. So that's the correct behavior.
As for the vanishing element, I can'y say for sure, but your override to _prepareLayout doesn't appear to either
Do the same things as Mage_Catalog_Block_Product_View::_prepareLayout
Call parent::_prepareLayout();
When you override a class in a Magento you're replacing an existing class with your own. If you change a method, you're responsible for that old code being run.
It's not clear what you're trying to accomplish here. You should consider breaking your problem down into smaller problems, and then posting one (or more) "I tried X, expected Y, and got Z" type questions. As written no one's going to be able to answer your question.