I have an application which has two parts, a WPF part and a Web part. I've written some coded ui to test it. However the coded ui is not stable and sometimes fails and sometimes passes. The reason it fails is that it fails to locates some of the controls! I try to use WaitForControlExist(8000) but it doesn't solve the problem. I previously used WaitForControlReady(8000) but it makes it even worst and the reason was mainly because of some of the controls like WPFButton so I decided to use WaitForControlExist instead. How can I make the test stable that they do not fail.
when I look at the logs, those controls that the coded ui could not pick up actually exist in the screen and I don't know why it couldn't pick them up.
Related
I want to write an extension based application, which means an application contains one or multiple program with a primary program (as core for example) and some extensions that aren't necessary but could be added to core to extend features of application. the extension host of vscode is a very good example and interesting. I tried to understand how it works several times and also searched for this approach but nothing found. I want to know how to write a program that can dynamically add and remove an small pieces of codes as extension. I don't know how this piece of codes should be, I don't know how they must be loaded/unloaded to/from program, I don't know if each of them should be a separate programs or not and such this "I don't know"s in this context.
I welcome to any idea and guides in this problem.
I usually code in cpp/Rust.
I am automating acceptance tests defined in a specification written in Gherkin using Elixir. One way to do this is an ExUnit addon called Cabbage.
Now ExUnit seems to provide a setup hook which runs before any single test and a setup_all hook, which runs before the whole suite.
Now when I try to isolate my Gherkin scenarios by resetting the persistence within the setup hook, it seems that the persistence is purged before each step definition is executed. But one scenario in Gherkin almost always needs multiple steps which build up the test environment and execute the test in a fixed order.
The other option, the setup_all hook, on the other hand, resets the persistence once per feature file. But a feature file in Gherkin almost always includes multiple scenarios, which should ideally be fully isolated from each other.
So the aforementioned hooks seem to allow me to isolate single steps (which I consider pointless) and whole feature files (which is far from optimal).
Is there any way to isolate each scenario instead?
First of all, there are alternatives, for example: whitebread.
If all your features, needs some similar initial step, maybe background steps are something to look into. Sadly those changes were mixed in a much larger rewrite of the library that newer got merged into. There is another PR which also is mixed in with other functionality and currently is waiting on companion library update. So currently that doesn't work.
Haven't tested how the library is behaving with setup hooks, but setup_all should work fine.
There is such a thing as tags. Which I think haven't yet been published with the new release, but is in master. They work with callback tag. You can look closer at the example in tests.
There currently is a little bit of mess. I don't have as much time for this library as I would like to.
Hope this helps you a little bit :)
I'm developing Windows Phone 8.1 WinRT application (Universal App), which is based on MapControl control.
The problem with it is that, for unknown reasons to me, when I call MapControl.SetLocation() method, I get AccessViolationException. It does not always happen - in fact I've been using that method for quite a long time and everything was fine. But now I'm developing new functionality - it boils down to porting code from MSDN (pushpin clustering) - MSDN Sample. Code contains some callback logic, some async/await usages. The problem is in mentioned earlier SetLocation(). I don't know why it throws exceptions.
What I've tried:
I'm working with MVVMLight, so experimented a lot with DispatcherHelper.CheckBeginInvokeOnUI(). Nothing.
Tried to make sure whether creating the pushpin object happens in UI thread - I don't know how to do that in the debugger (shall I check the tasks windows, or the threads window).
I don't post any code, because, as you can imagine, it's quite a lot of it - and I don't know if that would be any of use. So, my question is, do you know what might cause throwing AccessViolationException when invoking CheckBeginInvokeOnUI? Maybe there are some kind of constraints that I'm not aware of.
I have a stack which was originally built in Hypercard then migrated to Metacard. Obviously, it has expanded greatly over that time. Some core features broke when I tried to migrate to Runrev which is why I've waited till now to finally do that. I'm keeping it as a stack rather than an exe so I can save changes to it. I've built a standalone player to launch it and that is working. I've included the revmessagebox.rev stack in the Standalone Stack settings. This does add it but, incorrectly. I can put messages to it from my stack but, it won't run commands and it's missing all it's icons. I'm also included the revimagelibrary.rev and revtools.rev stacks in the hopes of fixing this but, no dice. I was also hoping that including revimagelibrary.rev would get my old Metacard icons to display but, no dice. I appreciate any help I can get on this.
Rich
I don't think you can. The message box is part of the IDE and requires the development environment to run. When you build a standalone your scripts etc are compiled and an interpreter for commands is no longer present.
To replicate it in a standalone you could use a simple window with a field to accept text and would require you passing the text entered to a "Do" command. The other functions present with the message box (accessed via the icons you mentioned) are also development tools and don't make much sense in a standalone.
The message box is not only integrated into the IDE, the engine also has hooks that directly support it. I'm not sure those hooks are included with the engine that is built into a standalone, so even if you adapt the existing message box for your standalone it still may not work correctly.
The solution, as others have said, is to build your own stack that functions as a pseudo-message box. It is easy to display messages in your own stack, and pretty easy to execute simple commands using the "do" command. It is somewhat more difficult to execute complex or multi-line commands. But I agree with Dunbarx that I'd assess the need for such a thing if you are planning this standalone for distribution. It's a non-standard interface element.
What James said. But note that though the msg box is indeed integral to the IDE, it is still just a stack, and that stack can be replicated to whatever extent you need.
That said, the msg box is usually used as a development tool, to test short scripts (usually one-liners), to get or set property values quickly, as a simple calculator, that sort of stuff. If you need that sort of functionality, you should probably integrate it more comprehensively into the structure of your project.
Craig Newman
My question will be hard to form, but to start:
I have an MFC SDI app that I have worked on for an embarrassingly long time, that never seemed to fit the Doc/View architecture. I.e. there isn't anything useful in the Doc. It is multi-threaded and I need to do more with threading, etc.
I dream about also porting it to Linux X Windows, but I know nothing about that programming environment as yet. Maybe Mac also.
My question is where to go from here?
I think I would like to convert from MFC Doc/View to straight Win API stuff with message loops and window procedures, etc. But the task seems to be huge.
Does the Linux X Windows environment use a similar kind of message loop, window procedure architecture?
Can I go part way? Like convert a little at a time without rendering my program unusable for long periods of work?
Added later:
My program is a file compare program (sounds simple enough.) So, stating my confusion in a simple way, normally a document can have multiple views, but in this app, I have one view with multiple (two) documents (files). I have a "compare engine" that I first wrote back in the DOS days, that is the heart of the program and the view is just looking at the output of that routine. Sometimes I think that some of my "view" code could make sense in a "document" class but I hardly know where to begin to separate it into more classes. I have recently started reading "Programming Windows" 5th Ed. by Charles Petzold, (I know that is quite out of date (C) 1998) hoping to get a better understanding of direct Windows programming.
I get overwhelmed with the proliferation of options like C#, NET, MFC, MVC, Qt, wxWidgets, etc.
I find I am often stuck trying to understand something going on in the MFC framework because something in my code doesn't work as it seems it should, but the problem is that I don't really understand how MFC is handling things in the background. That is why I am trying to learn "straight Windows programming" where my program has all the message passing code that I write. I hope this helps give enough insight into my question so someone can guide me on my way.
X works enough differently that a raw Windows program and a raw X program probably wouldn't be able to share much UI code at all.
If you want portability between the two, chances are pretty good that you want to use something like Qt or wxWidgets. Of the two, wxWidgets is more similar to MFC, so it would probably require less rewriting, but would maintain (more or less) the same "disconnect" you're seeing between what you want and what it provides.
Without knowing more about your application, and why it doesn't fit well with MFC, it's impossible to guess whether Qt would be a better fit or not. An immediate guess would be "probably not".
MFC uses a "document/view" architecture, where Qt uses the original Model-View-Controller architecture. For the most part, MFC's Document class is equivalent basically a Model and a Controller rolled into one -- so if your Document contains nothing useful, in Qt you'd apparently have both a Model and a Controller, neither of which did much that was useful.
That said, I have to raise a question about why your Document currently doesn't do much. The MVC pattern has proven applicable to a wide variety of problems, so while it's possible it can't work well for your problem, it's also possible that it could work well, and you're simply not using it. Without knowing more about what you're doing, it's impossible to even guess at that though.
Edit: Okay, the clarification helps quite a bit. The first thing to realize is that a Document does not necessarily equate to a file. Quite the contrary, a document can perfectly reasonably relate to an arbitrary number of files.
Just for example, consider a web browser. All the data needed to compose the page its currently displaying would reasonably be part of the same document. Depending on your viewpoint, that's either zero files, or a whole bunch of them (it will start as an arbitrary number of files coming from the server(s), but won't necessarily be stored as files locally at all). Storing any of it as a file locally will be a (more or less) accidental by-product of caching, and mostly unrelated to browsing per se.
In your case, you're presumably reading the two (or three?) files into memory and storing them along with some sort of data structure to hold the result of the comparison. After the comparison is complete, you might or might not discard the contents of the files themselves. I think it's safe to say that the "normal" separation of responsibilities would be for that data and the code that produces that data to be in the Document.
The View should contain only the code to take that result from that data structure, and display it on screen. Nearly the only data you normally want to store in the View would be things related to how the data is presented (e.g., things like a zoom level or current scroll position). Likewise, the code in the view should relate only to displaying the result and reacting to user input, NOT to "creating" the data in the first place.
As such, I think your program could be rewritten to use the Document/View pattern more effectively, or could be rewritten to use MVC. That, in turn, means a port to Qt could/would probably work just fine -- provided you're willing to put some time and effort into understanding how it's intended to work and then make what may be fairly substantial changes to your code to work the way it's designed to.
As I commented previously, wxWidgets is more like MFC in this respect -- it uses a Document and View, not a Model, View, and Controller. It's also going to work best if you do some rewriting to separate responsibilities the way it's designed for. The good point is that it's probably a bit easier to do that one step at a time: rewrite the code in MFC, which which you're already familiar, and then port it to wxWidgets -- but given the similarity between the two, that "Port" will probably be little more than minor editing -- often just changing some names from C* to wx* is just about enough. To my recollection, the only place I've run into much work was in creating menus -- with MFC they're normally handled via resources, but (at least a few years ago when I used it) wxWidgets normally directly exposed the code that created the menu entries.
Porting to Qt would probably be more work -- you pretty much have to learn a new framework, and substantially reorganize your code at the same time. The good point is that when you're done, the result will probably be somewhat cleaner, though given what you're doing, the difference may be pretty minor. In a Document/View, the View displays data, and reacts to user input. In a Model/View/Controller, the View only displays data, but user input (that modifies the underlying data) goes through the Controller. Since you (presumably) don't expect to modify the underlying data, the only user input involved probably belongs in the view in any case (e.g., things like scrolling). It's barely possible you might have a few things you could put in the Document/Model that would be open to change (e.g., things like the current font or colors the user has selected).