Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

e2e: extract selectors to separate file #1630

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tplevko
Copy link
Contributor

@tplevko tplevko commented Nov 18, 2024

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.48%. Comparing base (d3299a6) to head (3e3a098).
Report is 51 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               main    #1630    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage     78.48%   78.48%            
  Complexity      367      367            
==========================================
  Files           468      468            
  Lines         14778    14778            
  Branches       2746     2813    +67     
==========================================
  Hits          11599    11599            
+ Misses         3091     2906   -185     
- Partials         88      273   +185     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@tplevko tplevko marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2024 13:39
@tplevko tplevko marked this pull request as draft November 18, 2024 14:15
@tplevko tplevko force-pushed the selectors_e2e branch 5 times, most recently from 8221c9a to b00acd8 Compare November 19, 2024 07:37
@tplevko tplevko force-pushed the selectors_e2e branch 2 times, most recently from 8caf806 to 5323c42 Compare January 10, 2025 12:12
@lordrip
Copy link
Member

lordrip commented Jan 22, 2025

Argh 😢 now we have a bunch of conflicts now @tplevko.

Can we try a slightly different approach? I wonder if we could create a small class as a POC to act using a Page Object approach.

@djelinek, considering that in Kaoto web we use Cypress and in ExTester, if I'm not mistaken, Selenium, would it be possible to use the same locators across both frameworks?

I wonder if we could come with a couple of classes, in one hand, one abstract class and in the other, a Page Object class, this way, we could implement the abstract class using Selenium action commands and in the web we would use the Cypress mechanism, then the Page Object will get an instance of the concrete class, allowing to use the same commands across both Kaoto and VS Code Kaoto.

@djelinek
Copy link
Contributor

Argh 😢 now we have a bunch of conflicts now @tplevko.

Can we try a slightly different approach? I wonder if we could create a small class as a POC to act using a Page Object approach.

@djelinek, considering that in Kaoto web we use Cypress and in ExTester, if I'm not mistaken, Selenium, would it be possible to use the same locators across both frameworks?

I wonder if we could come with a couple of classes, in one hand, one abstract class and in the other, a Page Object class, this way, we could implement the abstract class using Selenium action commands and in the web we would use the Cypress mechanism, then the Page Object will get an instance of the concrete class, allowing to use the same commands across both Kaoto and VS Code Kaoto.

I think it would be possible and beneficial, I am just not convinced about scope of implementation needed regarding amount of resources needed to implement it are worth enough. Also how complex should be implementation of wrapper/api to automatically use correct Selenium/Cypress API..

What about the initial idea to simply start with string locators exported in separated package which can be then just used also by VS Code tests?

I am opned to further discussion of course so we can set up a call when you would like to brainstorm more on this topic 🙂

@lhein lhein added the rebase This PR branch is out of date and needs a rebase. label Feb 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rebase This PR branch is out of date and needs a rebase.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants