I like to keep things DRY, that's why I want to have the following in one of my steps:
if first(:css, "#blabla") != nil
find_by_id(blabla).click
end
find_by_id(....)
....
This means, that it will look for a certain element, and if it exists, it will click on it. If not, I will not lose time (my default wait time is 20 secs, which will be used if I put find instead of first there.
The main issue is that I don't want to lose time when checking for a certain element in this case, but I am also wondering if this is a good approach.
I see the issue that your code does unnecessary second query to browser (you already have first(:css, "#blabla") so no need to do find_by_id(blabla))
I propose you to find element using one query:
el = first('#blabla')
el.click unless el.nil?
Note that there is no losing time here as first doesn't block.
However, first doesn't check that there no other elements on the page. You can add :maximum to check it:
el = first('#blabla', maximum: 1)
el.click unless el.nil?
When you're using #find to decide on element presence, you should reduce the wait time for just that call:
if page.has_css?('#blabla', wait: 0)
# Do something
end
However, in your special case, the suggested solution is even better, because it saves you multiple "find" calls for the same element.
Related
Want to only use the first email if multiple are added. Made a function which looks for ',', if it finds it, displays a message and returns the first email.
For a strange reason, it seems to loop through the dataframe twice when using 'applymap', because it prints the message twice.
When I use the 'apply' function on the series, it -as expected-prints out once. Any idea why is this discrepancy?
From the documentation, version 0.25.0, I quote :
Notes
In the current implementation applymap calls func twice on the first column/row to decide whether it can take a fast or slow code path. This can lead to unexpected behavior if func has side-effects, as they will take effect twice for the first column/row.
Many lines and points possible that I would like to be able to track when I line/point has been moused over. Is there any short codeable way of doing it or do I half to come up with hundreds/thousands of different element names.
I've tried
self.z[0].canvas.create_line()
self.z[1].canvas.create_line()
as well as
self.z(0).canvas.create_line()
self.z(1).canvas.create_line()
to only get back an error saying something like z can't be an integer, aka you can't do that stupid:)
Is there anyway to set up a nice for loop and create the lines/points and then be able to test test them once they are created. I can test the points the way I want to be able to test them but I would just like an easier way of creating the lines/points.
Worst case scenario is there a way of setting up something like
self.z1.canvas
self.z2.canvas
self.z3.canvas
but have 1,2,3 each be able to be increased through a for loop? I'm not sure if I have ever seen something like what I'm suggesting be made mention of or not.
Every time you create an item on a canvas, it returns a unique id. You can store that id in a list.
self.lines = []
for x in range(1000):
item = self.canvas.create_line(...)
self.lines.append(item)
That being said, you don't need to keep any of these in an array to " track when I line/point has been moused over.". You can set up bindings for that.
I have a big dictionary and some of the elements occasionally end up with illegal values. I want to figure out where the illegal values are coming from. PyCharm should constantly monitor the values of my dictionary, and the moment any of them take the illegal value, it should break and let me inspect the state of the program.
I know I can do this by just creating a getter/setter for my dictionary instead of accessing it directly, and then break inside the setter with an appropriate condition.
Is there a way to do it without modifying my code?
I'm not sure if this answers your question but you can set a breakpoint on the line of code you want to break at, right click on that break point once it is set and then apply a condition.
An example of such a condition could be:
x > 5
Once you are at the stage in your loop/code where this condition is true i.e. when x = 6 then it will break and you can inspect all the current values/ status of your code.
Hope this helps
I try to hide the getPage [[+pageNav]] Placeholder if there is no pagination. But I can't do the following.
[[!+pageNav:notempty=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+pageNav]]</ul>`]]
Does someone know how I can hide the element with an apropriate output filter? (without own extra snippet). I also tried the following and some other (not likely to work variations).
[[!+pageNav:isnot=``:then=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+pageNav]]</ul>`]]`
Are you calling that code in a chunk that is cached?
Otherwise i've experienced this aswell and it seems custom placeholders sometimes behave that way, it's probably due to the fact that they actually have some unprocessed value during the IF computation but when it's actually output you see nothing. Or that the value is somehow "null" instead of "" while modx output filter might do a strict comparison.
If you're not calling it in a cached chunk or part of code, i suggest first trying with another getPage placeholder such as pageCount or total.
Like:
[[!+pageCount:gt=`1`:then=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
If that still doesn't work, a last resort in the form of a simple snippet will always solve it, like:
[[!outputPagination? &total=`[[+total]]` &limit=`XX` &output=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
In snippet:
if ($total > $limit) {
return $output;
}
Shouldn't it be...
[[!+page.nav:notempty=`<ul class="overview__pagination">[[!+page.nav]]</ul>`]]
Well, there is a much more easier way to do it than in the first answer. It's like TheMistaC says, even if my answer is a lot easier:
[[!+page.nav:notempty=`
[[!+page.nav]]
`]]
I use it to display a list of articles with getResources, so I know this works fine.
NOTE: The scenario is using 2 entity framework models to sync data between 2 databases, but I'd imagine this is applicable to other scenarios. One could try tackling this on the EF side as well (like in this SO question) but I wanted to see if AutoMapper could handle it out-of-the-box
I'm trying to figure out if AutoMapper can (easily :) compare the source and dest values (when using it to sync to an existing object) and do the copy only if the values are different (based on Equals by default, potentially passing in a Func, like if I decided to do String.Equals with StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase for some particular pair of values). At least for my scenario, I'm fine if it's restricted to just the TSource == TDest case (I'll be syncing over int's, string's, etc, so I don't think I'll need any type converters involved)
Looking through the samples and tests, the closest thing seems to be conditional mapping (src\UnitTests\ConditionalMapping.cs), and I would use the Condition overload that takes the Func (since the other overload isn't sufficient, as we need the dest information too). That certainly looks on the surface like it would work fine (I haven't actually used it yet), but I would end up with specifying this for every member (although I'm guessing I could define a small number of actions/methods and at least reuse them instead of having N different lambdas).
Is this the simplest available route (outside of changing AutoMapper) for getting a 'only copy if source and dest values are different' or is there another way I'm not seeing? If it is the simplest route, has this already been done before elsewhere? It certainly feels like I'm likely reinventing a wheel here. :)
Chuck Norris (formerly known as Omu? :) already answered this, but via comments, so just answering and accepting to repeat what he said.
#James Manning you would have to inherit ConventionInjection, override
the Match method and write there return c.SourceProp.Name =
c.TargetProp.Name && c.SourceProp.Value != c.TargetProp.Value and
after use it target.InjectFrom(source);
In my particular case, since I had a couple of other needs for it anyway, I just customized the EF4 code generation to include the check for whether the new value is the same as the current value (for scalars) which takes care of the issue with doing a 'conditional' copy - now I can use Automapper or ValueInject or whatever as-is. :)
For anyone interested in the change, when you get the default *.tt file, the simplest way to make this change (at least that I could tell) was to find the 2 lines like:
if (ef.IsKey(primitiveProperty))
and change both to be something like:
if (ef.IsKey(primitiveProperty) || true) // we always want the setter to include checking for the target value already being set