Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@NightFox7
Copy link

Locator description should be displayed in report instead of key (#65)

based on (#68)

Locator description should be displayed in report instead of key (qaf-tm#65)

based on (qaf-tm#68)
@cjayswal cjayswal self-requested a review June 15, 2018 15:41
private String getParam(String text) {
String result = getBundle().getSubstitutor().replace(text);
ParamType ptype = ParamType.getType(result);
String value = String.valueOf(getBundle().getObject(result));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@NightFox7, Thanks for the pull request
This possibly cause issues if

  • value may be null if property not exist! use default value to overcome that situation of possible NullPointerException
    • String value = getBundle().getString(result, result);
  • value with key exist but argument referenced is not a locator or not parameter
    • need to keep in mind that not all steps are element step, listener will be called by all steps. So possibly case where it points to string and not locator.

Copy link
Collaborator

@amitbhoraniya amitbhoraniya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree. We also need to consider below testcase also

<root>
    <user>
		<valid>
			<username>amit</username>
			<password>amitpwd</password>
		</valid>
	</user>
</root>

BDD

When user login with 'user.valid'
@QAFTestStep(description="user login with {key}")
public void login(String key){
	LoginBean bean = new LoginBean();
	bean.fillFromConfig(key);
        //To-Do
}

@cjayswal I think actual root cause of this problem is StringTestStep#81. If we remove that line that #65 should work and #64 will also be resolved.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants