- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 14:34:17 +0000
- To: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26266
Bug ID: 26266
Summary: Webdriver command batches suggestion
Product: Browser Test/Tools WG
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: WebDriver
Assignee: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
Reporter: mail2lf@gmail.com
QA Contact: public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
CC: mike@w3.org
Hi guys,
I have recently encountered an challenge while implementing automated tests and
think we can design a pretty useful generic feature out of it.
The idea is pretty simple: create an interface to be able to create a batch of
commands and get a notification upon their completion. So, basically the
approach is:
1) An API consumer requests WebDriver to notice batch start
2) WebDriver replies with a unique batch id
3) All the commands executed later on are associated with this batch
4) An API consumer requests WebDriver to notice batch finish
5) An API consumer is able to ask if the batched commands have been completed
6) (Optional) WebDriver can notify API consumer about batch finalization
The motivation behind this is pretty simple: executing some actions can produce
delayed side effects (send an AJAX request and handling a callback once it
finishes; submitting the form into an iframe and handling onload event; etc).
Unfortunately, currently there is no way to know that a command (or a set of
commands) have finished working completely (including all side effects produced
directly or indirectly by them).
Why do we need this is real world? Well, a number of examples can be provided:
the simpliest is writing automated tests for javascript code, which requires
asserting some values only after all asynchronous activity has completed.
Please note it is different from page loading modes as the effects are not
limited to network / parser / DOM – one can set a delayed executing (via
setTimeout) and aim to check if it worked properly (and, of course, only after
setTimeout has fired), which gets handled by the proposed functionality.
If anyone could provide his thoughts on the suggestion it would be great – I am
keen to discuss and polish the design of this feature :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 4 July 2014 14:34:22 UTC