RE: [Webtest] Webtest contributions. - Lyvers, Wiiliam - com.canoo.lists.webtest

3 messages in com.canoo.lists.webtestRE: [Webtest] Webtest contributions.

From	Sent On	Attachments
Lyvers, Wiiliam	07 May 2002 05:43
Carsten Seibert	07 May 2002 07:46	.dat
Lyvers, Wiiliam	07 May 2002 08:36

Subject:	RE: [Webtest] Webtest contributions.
From:	Lyvers, Wiiliam (wlyv...@Fusura.com)
Date:	05/07/2002 08:36:08 AM
List:	com.canoo.lists.webtest

I agree that there is no need to expose the ant project to just obtain properties. We are not using the project for any other things besides obtaining external properties. We have discussed encapsulating the project through a similiar technique as you mentioned below. This leads to my next question - how are contributions being excepted? Through patches to this mailing list?

--Billy

-----Original Message----- From: webt...@lists.canoo.com [mailto:webt...@lists.canoo.com]On Behalf Of Carsten Seibert Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:47 AM To: webt...@lists.canoo.com Subject: RE: [Webtest] Webtest contributions.

Hi Billy,

thanks for the contribution. I think it is a good idea to use an existing ant property if no value is specified. We have this pattern of

also quite often and will appreciate your proposal.

My question is if you really need to expose the ant project to all steps or if something like

String myPropertyValue = textContext.getExternalProperty("myProperty");

would do the trick. The context could then get the ant project from somewhere and ask is for the property. It would nicely encapsulate the knowledge about the ant project. Are you using the ant project elsewhere?

Ciao, Carsten

Carsten Seibert seiberTEC GmbH Switzerland mailto:seib...@seibertec.ch / phone: +41 79 636 4317

-----Original Message----- From: webt...@lists.canoo.com [mailto:webt...@lists.canoo.com]On Behalf Of Lyvers, Wiiliam Sent: Dienstag, 7. Mai 2002 14:44 To: webt...@lists.canoo.com Subject: [Webtest] Webtest contributions.

My company has been using webtest since shortly after it's release. We have made a few modifications and would like to begin contributing these back to the project if others agree that they are useful. The biggest change that was made was the exposure of ant properties to the individual steps. We noticed that we had a tremedous amount of redundancy with some of the steps.

For example the setinputfield step nearly always pulled data from a property with the same name. <setinputfield stepid="b91" fieldname="b91" value="${b91}"/> To eliminate this we exposed the ant Project off of the TestSpecification so that all of the steps could perform the following code. String property = spec.getProject().getProperty("b91"). Our version of the Setinputfield step looks up the fieldname and uses it if the value attribute is not set. The xml then looks as follows: <setinputfield stepid="b91" fieldname="b91"/>

We have looked at only exposing the properties themselves, but we are more interested on the group's thoughts on the overall concept. A couple of our modifications rely on this property exposure and we like to get input on issues with doing this?

--Billy

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.