Iakiv Kramarenko comments

Results 153 comments of


                                            Iakiv Kramarenko

fix have.no.attribute('id').value('name') to work same as have.attribute('id').value('name').not_

probably same is actual for `exercises.should(have.no.exact_text(20).each)`

consider fixing broken waiting on any filtered_like_collection.cached

seems like pretty tough connected with #534

should we help users do not shoot their legs when using browser.all(selector) in for loops?

@cachebag > but do you think that [:3] might be a bit misleading? Typically, slices mean "take up N items", not "wait for exactly N items." Users might just expect...

should we help users do not shoot their legs when using browser.all(selector) in for loops?

It's a bit complicated to implement right now, because it relates to some kind of caching logic of Selene Elements... So probably this will be on my shoulders...

Fix test instability related to timers

Hm... How the solution would look like? if use ITimeProvider?

Fix test instability related to timers

Actually... specifically that failure, from your example above – is pretty weird The general timeout is 1.0 The polling is 0.05 - almost zero, that means that we will recheck...

Fix test instability related to timers

Good good! Looking forward! On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:42 PM wjgerritsen-0001 ***@***.***> wrote: > My guess is the the CI server is pretty heavy loaded, so that the...

ensure in tests that assert error messages we have Assert.fail after Act

@wjgerritsen-0001 I don't like using Assert.Throws helper, because it breaks AAA (Arrange, Act, Assert) pattern... compare: ```cs [Test] public void Should_HaveText_IsRenderedInError_OnHiddenElementFailure() { // ARRANGE Configuration.Timeout = 0.25; Configuration.PollDuringWaits = 0.1;...

ensure in tests that assert error messages we have Assert.fail after Act

Heh, Nice trick! :) It's definitely better than was in terms of AAA pattern. Yet - this is a trick:) Because the actual action is performed under ASSERT clause... Let...

#90: refactored collection index to not use Should(Have.Count(...)

Will try to review it this weekend! thank you for the PR!