collection.first_by as alias or substitution of collection.element_by?

[yashaka]

Thoughts:

• collection.first_by(element_condition) is kind of shortcut for collection.by(condition).first
  • + so such name for command would be easier to remember
  • + and will be less questions like: "what is the difference betwean .element_by(condition) and .by(condition).first ?
• collection.element_by(element_condition) returns Element by finding one ELEMENT among many...
  • + hence, is kind of consistent with element.element(selector) that also finds ELEMENT
    • - but "not among" - it actually finds "inside"
• + .first_by is a bit more concise than .element_by

[yashaka]

we also will probably have methods to find INSIDE collection – elements by selector...

e.g. for

 <table>
  <tr>
    <td>A1</td><td>A2</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>B1</td><td>B2</td>
  </tr>
</table> 

so:

• browser.all('tr').all('td').should(have.texts('A1', 'A2', 'B1', 'B2'))
• browser.all('tr').element('td').should(have.texts('A1', 'B1'))

or with s/ss stile:

• ss('tr').ss('td').should(have.texts('A1', 'A2', 'B1', 'B2'))
• ss('tr').s('td').should(have.texts('A1', 'B1'))

if we go with "using collection.element(selector)" naming then collection.element_by(condition) might get one more argument to be deprecated in favor of .first_by(condition) ... See more at #449

[yashaka]

.element_by has one benefit over .first_by... The phrase items.element_by(have.text('foo')) leads to a more natural meaning that such element should be only one... while items.first_by(have.text('foo')) gives a clue that it's just one of many... Hence, probably, we have to keep .element_by nevertheless... And question is just to add first_by as alias or not? Maybe I tend to NOT now... Cause first_by(condition) will not add much more value on top of by(condition).first