I have a simple LitElement component like so:
class MyElement extends LitElement {
constructor() {
super();
}
customMethod(data) {
// do something with the passed parameter
}
render() {
return html`<div id="element"></div>`;
}
}
customElements.define('my-element', MyElement);
And I want to be able to call that customMethod from outside of my element.
So for example if I add the element to web page like so:
<my-element></my-element>
I then want to be able to add some JavaScript to the page and call that customMethod.
I tried:
var element = document.getElementById('element');
element.shadowRoot.customMethod('example data');
But it claims it's not available... How can I call a method on an instance of LitElement?
You don't need to use shadowRoot in the call :
var element = document.getElementById('element');
element.customMethod('example data');
but you need to be able to locate your element
<my-element id='element'></my-element>
I had a very similar problem and the existing answers did not seem to fix it. The reason for my issue was caused by the fact that LIT Element scripts are exported as modules, meaning that they are loaded and executed after the initial DOM has been parsed. So if you are using a script to access the public method - make sure that it is also in a module (or you can alternatively place the code into an appropriate timeout).
So when defining an element in LIT Element as follows:
#customElement('my-element')
export class MyElement extends LitElement {
#state()
text = '';
customMethod(data) {
this.text = 'Custom method was called!';
}
render() {
return html`<div id="element">${this.text}</div>`;
}
}
And adding a script in my index.html page:
<my-element id='element'></my-element>
<script type="module">
const element = document.getElementById('element');
element.customMethod();
</script>
Make sure that the script tag contains type="module". Otherwise you will see the following error in the console: Uncaught TypeError: element.customMethod is not a function
Link to LIT Element Playground.
Also, here is a great article that explains how scripts are loaded in detail.
Related
is it possible to look for elements only within the "At-Element" ?
Example Page:
class SearchDialogPage extends Page {
static at = { $('div', class: 'modalOverlay').has('div', class: 'contentbox__title', text: 'Search for Company') }
static content = {
nameTextline { $('div').has('label', text:'Name').$('input') module TextInput }
}
} }
I find more than one element for nameTextline, so i want to tell the Page, that it has to look into the div-Element declared in the "at" field.
Semantically, at is not a content element but a boolean condition, i.e. whatever code you have inside there will be evaluated as a "Groovy truthy" value. You should define your element in the content section, then refer to it from your at condition, not the other way around.
Trying to use a property to configure a WinJS control from within Angular2, so far I couldn't find a solution, e.g. this code below is throwing 'Can't bind to 'dataWinOptions' since it isn't a known property of the '' element'.
#View({
template: `<div id="rating" data-win-control='WinJS.UI.Rating' [data-win-options]='jsonRating'></div>`
})
class MyRating {
rating: number;
get jsonRating() {
return '{averageRating: ' + this.rating + '}';
}
constructor() {
this.rating = 1.5;
}
}
Any hint?
#ericdes about your last comment I think this would be the best option. Assuming you have Nth WinJS controls
Consider the following code. I'm specifying differents values for the averageRating property in options.
<winjs-control [options]="{averageRating: '1.5', someMoreOptions : 'x'}"></winjs-control>
<winjs-control [options]="{averageRating: '1.4', differentOptionsForThisOne :'Z'}"></winjs-control>
<winjs-control [options]="{averageRating: '1.3'}"></winjs-control>
<winjs-control [options]="{averageRating: '1.2'}"></winjs-control>
<winjs-control [options]="{averageRating: '1.1'}"></winjs-control>
// more and more...
The component will read this options property and will pass it to the view. Forget about the directive, it isn't necessary after all.
We pass options through attr.data-win-options since it isn't a property of div but an attribute.
#Component({
selector : 'winjs-control',
properties : ['options']
})
#View({
template : `<div data-win-control="WinJS.UI.Rating" [attr.data-win-options]="jsonRating"></div>`,
})
class WinJSComponent implements OnInit, AfterViewInit {
constructor() {}
// We specify onInit so we make sure 'options' exist, at constructor time it would be undefined
// And we stringify it or otherwise it will pass an object, we need to convert it to a string
onInit() {
this.jsonRating = JSON.stringify(this.options);
}
// We process WinJS after view has been initialized
// this is necessary or 'data-win-options' won't be fully processed
// and it will fail silently...
afterViewInit() {
WinJS.UI.processAll();
}
}
Here's a plnkr for this case.
That's one option and IMHO I think this is the easiest one. Another one, having the same HTML content, would be to communicate the parent with its children and I haven't tested your case with that approach.
As I understand it, a QML Component is like a kind of like a class in C++. It contains the definition of a QML object but isn't an instance of it. You can create a Component in these ways:
Creating a .qml file with the component name as its filename.
Define it inline with the Component { } syntax.
However these are actually two different things. The second one is more like a factory because you can do things like:
Component {
id: factory
Rectangle { width: 100; height:100; color: "red }
}
Component.onCompleted: {
var rect1 = factory.createObject(parent);
}
Whereas with the separate file you need to first load it into a factory like this:
var factory = Qt.createComponent("RedRectangle.qml")
var rect1 = factory.createObject(parent);
I'm only concerned with dynamic object creation, so this is not an option:
RedRectangle {
id: rect1
}
My question is: is there a way to create the objects dynamically, without having to create the Component factory dynamically too, and without having to specify the Component inline. I.e. I want the first example, but where the Rectangle is specified in another file.
I want this:
Component {
id: factory
url: "RedRectangle.qml"
}
Component.onCompleted: {
var rect1 = factory.createObject(parent);
}
Sadly that doesn't work. I also tried this:
Component {
id: factory
}
Component.onCompleted: factory.loadUrl("RedRectangle.qml");
But it doesn't work either. Am I being stupid or is this just not supported?
Here is some encapsulation:
Fact.qml (for some reason it doesn't let me name it Factory)
QtObject {
property string url
readonly property Component component : Qt.createComponent(url)
function get() { return component }
function load(url) { return Qt.createComponent(url) }
}
usage:
Fact {
id: f
url: "RedRect.qml"
}
StackView {
id: stack
}
Component.onCompleted: {
stack.push(f.component) // redrect
f.url = "BlueRect.qml"
stack.push(f.get()) // bluerect, redundant but shorter
stack.push(f.load("GreenRect.qml")) // greenrect, f.component is still bluerect
}
It will only load the component when its component property is referenced and you can change the url to load other components with the same Fact instance. Also the auxiliary load() method, which returns a component without actually changing the one potentially cached.
Actually the answer is not too bad, though I still think Component should support specifying a url directly.
Here is my solution:
property var factory: Qt.createComponent("RedRectangle.qml")
When I click a button I have to wait for some dynamic content to be rendered. When I put the waitFor closure in the test it works correctly. However, I wanted to put the waitFor in a method inside the Page object so I do not have to always call the waitFor after every click, but when I do that it fails stating it cannot find the property.
This does not work:
class LandingPage extends Page {
static content = {
resultsBtn(to: ResultsPage) { $("button", id: "showresults") }
}
void getResults() {
resultsBtn.click()
waitFor { ResultsPage.results.displayed }
}
}
class ResultsPage extends Page {
static content = {
results { $("div", id: "listresults") }
}
}
class ShowResults extends GebReportingTest {
#Test
public void displayResults() {
to LandingPage
getResults()
}
}
The error states something like "No such property: results for class ResultsPage".
Is it possible to put references to content from other Page Objects inside other Page Object methods?
EDIT: I feel like this is more of a Groovy specific thing rather than Geb. I'm not sure if it's even possible to access bindings within the content closure. But it also seems like creating a getVariable() function inside the Page Object doesn't help much either.
First you shouldn't assign closures in content blocks (there's unnecessary = in ResultPage) but pass them to an implicit method, you should have:
static content = {
results { $("div", id: "listresults") }
}
The other question is why do you want to model this as two pages? As far as I understand clicking the button doesn't cause a page reload but there's an ajax call to retrieve the results. I would simply put both results and resultsBtn as contents of one page and your problem would be gone.
EDIT:
It turns out that a page change is involved in your case. Assuming that you always want to wait for these results to appear you can either:
put your waitFor condition inside of static at = {} block for ResultsPage - at checks are executed implicitly whenever you use to() which means that it will wait wherever you go to that page
put a waitFor in a page change listener
access current page via the browser property on a page, in LandingPage: waitFor { browser.page.results.displayed } but this seems like a dirty solution to me - reaching from one page to another...
I've created the code below to dynamically load 2 buttons into an element with an ID of masthead. Then a function called showMenus runs when each button is clicked, running some jQuery animations. Everything is wrapped inside of a RequireJS module.
The code works fine as is but I'm thinking it may be better to break it up into two separate RequireJS modules/files: one that loads the buttons on the page and another one that runs the showMenus function. I did refer to the RequireJS API docs but couldn't find an answer.
Any help is appreciated...thanks in advance!
require(['jquery'], function ($) {
var header = document.getElementById("masthead"),
$navMenu = $("#site-navigation-list"),
$searchBox = $("#searchform"),
menuButton = document.createElement("div"),
searchButton = document.createElement("div"),
showMenus;
$(menuButton).attr("id", "menu");
$(searchButton).attr("id", "search");
header.appendChild(searchButton);
header.appendChild(menuButton);
// break the code below into its on RequireJS module?
showMenus = function(btn,el) {
$(btn).click(function() {
if (el.is(":visible") ) {
el.slideUp({
complete:function(){
$(this).css("display","");
}
});
} else {
el.slideDown();
}
});
};
showMenus(menuButton, $navMenu);
showMenus(searchButton, $searchBox);
});
What follows is only my opinion, but you might find it useful.
It might help to think in terms of things that your app is made of, and then maybe they are candidates for modules. So in your example, a 'masthead' seems to be a thing that you are interested in.
So using RequireJS, we can create a new module representing a generic masthead:
// Masthead module
define(['jquery'], function ($) {
function showMenus (btn, el) {
function toggle (el) {
if (el.is(":visible")) {
el.slideUp({
complete:function(){
$(this).css("display","");
}
});
} else {
el.slideDown();
}
}
$(btn).click(function() {
toggle(el);
});
}
// A Masthead is an object that encapsulates a masthead DOM element.
// This is a constructor function.
function Masthead (mastheadElement) {
// 'this' is the masthead object that is created with the 'new'
// keyword in your application code.
// We save a reference to the jQuerified version of mastheadElement.
// So mastheadElement can be a DOM object or a CSS selector.
this.$mastheadElement = $(mastheadElement);
}
// Add a method to Masthead that creates a normal button
Masthead.prototype.addButton = function (id) {
var $btn = $("<div/>").attr("id", id);
this.$mastheadElement.append($btn);
return $btn;
};
// Add a method to Masthead that creates a 'toggling' button
Masthead.prototype.addTogglingButton = function (id, elementToToggle) {
// ensure we have a jQuerified version of element
elementToToggle = $(elementToToggle);
// Reuse the existing 'addButton' method of Masthead.
var $btn = this.addButton(id);
showMenus($btn, elementToToggle);
return $btn;
};
// return the Masthead constructor function as the module's return value.
return Masthead;
});
And then use this module in our actual application code:
// Application code using Masthead module
require(["Masthead"], function (Masthead) {
// We create a new Masthead around an existing DOM element
var masthead = new Masthead("#masthead");
// We add our buttons.
masthead.addTogglingButton("menu", "#site-navigation-list");
masthead.addTogglingButton("search", "#searchform");
});
The advantage of this approach is that no DOM ids are hard-coded into the module. So we can reuse the Masthead module in other applications that require this functionality, but which may be using different DOM ids.
It might be convenient to think of this as separating the what things are from the how we use them.
This is a simple example, but frameworks/libraries like Backbone and Dojo (and many, many more) take this further.