In the example code for the widgets in AMI.js they get the WidgetsHandle from 'base/widgets/widgets.handle'. Is there a way to access the widgets when just using the AMI library without access to the whole repo? I've tried doing
var wh = new AMI.WidgetsHandle(a,b,c,d)
But it says it's not a constructor.
(The example is https://github.com/FNNDSC/ami/blob/dev/examples/widget_handle/widget_handle.js)
You should use "AMI.HandleWidget" instead.
It is been exported there.
You code should look like:
const handle = new AMI.HandleWidget(...)
HTH,
Related
Elementor Pro (the WordPress page builder) integrates beautifully with Swiper, tying their GUI to the JS parameters and database content.
However, for my project, I need to make some changes to the Swiper "CoverFlow" skin Init parameters (show more slides, change the 3D effect facing direction...).
My hope is to to use the Destroy method of the Swiper API which looks like:
mySwiper.destroy(deleteInstance, cleanStyles);
Then I can initialize the Swiper again, with my own custom parameters. The challenge is that the way Elementor calls Swiper in frontend.js is a complex anonymous function that doesn't really allow me to know what "mySwiper" would be... On line 567:
this.swipers.main = new Swiper(this.elements.$mainSwiper, this.getSwiperOptions());
I would be so grateful if someone could please help me understand what "this.swipers.main" would translate to after Init so that I can destroy the swiper and initialize it again with my own parameters.
Obviously I cannot edit frontend.js itself as it is a plugin file that needs to be updated.
Extra points for whomever teaches me how to fish and what the methodology is to solve these types of puzzles for other similar situations.
You can give an ID to the Elementor widget ex: slider1 and then with JS you can use:
var sliderInstance = document.querySelector('#slider1 .swiper-container').swiper;
After this you can call sliderInstance.destroy() wherever you want.
And if you want to initialize it again you can call:
var sliderInstance = new Swiper('#slider1 .swiper-container', {
//options
});
Hi CodeceptJS Community,
Is there a way to use custom defined functions (under steps_file.js) as I. customFunction() in page object files.
Is there a way to use native codeceptjs functions (like I.click()) in my custom helper files
I couldn't find any help in the documentation and in other sources. Is there any way to achieve this?
And is there any way to use xpath locators in puppeteer helper?
this.helpers['Puppeteer'].page.click(xpath);
I had the same problem to use custom steps in pageObjects.
To avoid it, i passed the actor (I) as parameter to my pageObject function.
page object:
const I = actor();
module.exports = {
doSomething(I){
I.login();
}
};
Test scenario:
Scenario('Test something' (I,pageObject)=>{
pageObject.doSomething(I)
})
In this case, pageObjects will has access to all custom steps from I :)
Thank you for your sharing Matheus. I have used a different solution. Instead of writing "I" object in every page object method (which was also one option for me), I have created a custom helper file and written all methods using puppeteer helper like below;
async method() {
await this.helpers['Puppeteer'].click(xpath);
}
I can call this method both in tests and page objects
I.method();
I was facing the same issue and when I looked into the typescripts definitions I noticed that actor() which is required in every page object etc. has custom steps arguments.
So this worked for me to extend the const I = actor(); witht the custom steps form steps_file.js;
const customSteps = require('./steps_file');
const I = actor(customSteps());
After that, I can use all methods in page objects like in tests scenarios which are accessing the methods from steps_file.js
I started working with CodedUI few months before to automate a desktop Application(WPF).
Just checking out for the best ways to create a framework for my Application.
As, I have seen in other automation tools, I feel the heart of an automation framework using any tool(UI Based) is the way it's object Repository is created i.e. how well the UI objects are defined. A Cleaner and well defined Object Repository always proves to be very helpful when it comes to updating your tests.
I am trying to discover the best way to store my UIObjects so that in case of any UI changes in my Application, I have to put minimum effort to update my automation test.
Also, If an Object changes in application, updating it only at one place should solve the problem.
This can be any kind of change like :
->change in just a property(This I feel would be very easy to update in automation Test. The best and Easiet way I feel is to simply update the .uitest file(the xml file) if possible.)
->change in hierarchy and position
->entirely new object added
For the 2nd and 3rd changes, updating scripts become a difficult job, esp if the UIObject is being referred at may places, in many TestMethods, or Modules.
Also, I have generally seen that in Test Methods, Variable Declarations are done to create a reference to the UIMap objects and those variables are further used in the TestMethod Code.
So, in this case If the UI of my application changes, I will have to update the variable decalaration in each of the Test Methods. I want to reduce this effort to changing the variable decalaration only at one place. OfCourse, I cannot have all the code inside only one Test Method. One way that came to my mind is as:
Can't I have simply one common place for all these Variable decalarations. We can give a unique and understandable name to each UIObject e.g.: The decalratoions will look like:
UITabPage UITabPage = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage;
WpfRow UIRow = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow;
WpfText UIEquipmentTagText = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UITagCell.UIEquipmentTagText;
WpfCheckBox UIEquipmentCheckBox = this.UIMap.UISimWindow.UISelectEquipmentTabList.UITabPage.UIEquipmentDetailsTable.UIRow.UICheckBoxCell.UICheckBox;
....
....
and use these variables wherever required. Hence, In case of any chnages also, there will be only one place where you will need to update thse objects.
But for this, These varaibles must be made STATIC. What can be problem with making these Object Variables static?
Please provide your suggestion on this topic. May be what I am thinking is not possible or practical. I just want to choose the best way to start with before I go too far with the automation scripts and realize later that my approach wasn't a good one.
Thanks in Advance,
Shruti
Look into using descriptive programming instead of using the UIMaps.
Make a static class with generic functions to assist. Going to give you some examples of how to set it up.
For example:
public WinWindow parentwin(string ParentControlName)
{
var parentwin = new WinWindow();
parentwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ParentControlName);
return parentwin;
}
public WinWindow childwin(string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = new WinWindow(parentwin(ParentControlName));
childwin.SearchProperties.Add("Control Name", ChildWinControlName);
return childwin;
}
public WinButton button(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var childwin = childwin(ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
var button = new WinButton(childwin);
button.SearchProperties.Add("Name", ButtonName);
}
public void ClickButton(string ButtonName,string ChildWinControlName, string ParentControlName)
{
var button = button(ButtonName,ChildWinControlName,ParentControlName);
Mouse.Click(button);
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocus)
{
var NewFocus = new NewFocus();
NewFocus.SetFocus();
}
public void ChangeFocus(WinWindow NewFocusChild, string c)
{
var a = new NewFocus();
a.SetFocus();
}
ChangeFocus(childwin("WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
ClickButton("&OK", "WelcomeForm", "MainForm");
I have an Excel Vsto addin application in which I host WPF application build using Calibrun Micro Autofac.I have a dialog popping up the excel and I want that Pop up window's Owner to be set to this excel window.Only way I see doing this is using WindowInteropHelper Class which needs Window instance.
And I am using settings like this :
dynamic settings = new ExpandoObject();
And I show window like this :
windowManager.ShowDialog(viewModel, settings: settings);
So What should I do to set the settings.Owner Property to this excel window(Whose Handle is known) so that the Pop up window is always on top of excel window??
It looks like you are hosting a WPF application (add-in) inside Excel which is an Office application and Caliburn.Micro has a constructor in BootstrapperBase class exactly for this situation, it looks like this: BootstrapperBase(useApplication = true), so you should derive your bootstrapper from BootstrapperBase and pass in false to the base constructor. something like this:
class MyBootstrapper : BootstrapperBase {
MyBootstrapper()
: base(false)
{
}
}
Then Caliburn.Micro will set the owner property correctly for you, you don't have to worry about it. Now if you knew about this but it didn't work for then comment on this and i will give you a solution specific to your situation.
Edit: To set the owner of the created window we need to set the Owner property (which is of type Window) but the problem is that you are working with a native win32 window so you only have a handle and WPF windows don't accepts handles as Owners, and the second problem is that we don't have a reference to the created window so we can wrap it inside a WindowInteropHelper, in order to solve this i suggest the following:
Add information to the created window so we can identify it later, we can do it like this:
var settings = new ExpandoObject();
settings.Tag = "THE_ONE"
windowManager.ShowDialog(viewModel, settings: settings);
After doing so we need to get a reference to that window, so we can
do something like this: var ourWindow = Application.Current.Windows.FirstOrDefault(w => w.Tag == "THE_ONE");
Now we wrap that with a WindowInteropHelper like this: var
interopHelper = new WindowInteropHelper(ourWindow);
Now we can set owner to the native window handle like this:
interopHelper.Owner = (IntPtr) //
PUT_YOUR_NATIVE_WINDOW_HANDLE_HERE;
That's all i can help you with, i hope it works.
By using Microsoft's Unity, I am able to override a dependency in the exact moment that I'm resolving an instance, for example:
var valueObjectThatOverridesAnyConfiguration = new object();
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.Resolve<ATypeWithConstructorArguments>(new DependencyOverride(typeof(object), valueObjectThatOverridesAnyPreviousConfiguration);
That will override any previous configuration on my UnityContainer and inject the instance I provided on the DependencyOverride.
Is there a way to specify it in a Container level ? Like an extension or something ? I don't want to do it at the resolve moment!
Thanks! Let me know if I'm being confuse to you, I'll provide more info.
Do you mean something like this. The part that sounds like your problem starts in the middle of the thread.
It allows you to do this
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.AddNewExtension<SemanticGroupExtension>();
container.RegisterGroup<IVehicle, Car>("Car").Use<IWheel, CarWheel>().Use<IEngine, CarEngine>();
container.RegisterGroup<IVehicle, Motorcycle>("Motorcycle").Use<IWheel, MotorcycleWheel>().Use<IEngine, MotorcycleEngine>();
var car = container.Resolve<IVehicle>("Car");
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(car.Wheel, typeof(CarWheel));
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(car.Engine, typeof(CarEngine));
var motorcycle = container.Resolve<IVehicle>("Motorcycle");
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(motorcycle.Wheel, typeof(MotorcycleWheel));
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(motorcycle.Engine, typeof(MotorcycleEngine));
The sources can be found here inside the TecX.Unity project.