Re: Implicit Wait

On 18/10/16 18:02, Jason Leyba wrote:
> Let me get this straight: implicit waits are now inconsistently defined
> and implemented, and there doesn't even appear to be strong support for
> whether users should use this feature at all. So expanding the spec to
> cover all the possible scenarios for implicit waits is less work and
> less complicated than simply removing the feature? OK

It certainly seems less complicated to spec. But the outstanding 
question is whether anyone would implement those semantics or would in 
fact continue to implement the selenium semantics (whatever those are, 
and to a greater or lesser degree). If you can get all remote end 
implementors to explicitly agree to drop the idea of implicit waits, I 
will be OK with it for geckodriver, but I fear the test breakage this 
will cause.

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 18:17:21 UTC