Accept repeated views #38
Conversation
|
What do you think @rocboronat @SmasSive? I think the only cons are that the error message in case of exception would be different, and that the Barista code gets more complex. If you guys like it maybe we should apply this technique to other assertions as well. |
|
Wep @Sloy! Why not just catch the "MultipleMatchesException" and return green? |
|
There could be multiple matches for withText but be hidden |
|
I like your idea, could be a little tricky but I like more than Roc's because catching an exception to do something expected... Usually it's not a good idea because you know, an exception it's something unexpected. |
| android:id="@+id/repeated_view_1" | ||
| android:layout_width="wrap_content" | ||
| android:layout_height="wrap_content" | ||
| android:visibility="gone" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about adding a test that check that this TextView is invisible and the next ones visible? Just to check that the context that we're testing is the good one. If not, someone could remove this TextView, break your feature, and the tests will give a green instead of a red.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the idea. But I think it should be part of the "Given" of the new test, instead of a new test. As you said, it's to verify the context of this test, not something independent. Agree?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Totally... the thing is that I don't know if it's common to check the context in the "given" part instead of setting it. But... let's give it a try :·)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wep @Sloy how's the approach to this suggestion? It's something that we can do? Or it's too hard for this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh you're right. I thought I already did it! Let me add it real quick.
|
By the way, to save you a click to Travis:
|
|
Going to do the simplest job ever seen... :D |
|
Mmmmm @Sloy , what do you think about doing the same at |
|
@rocboronat yes, it's part of my first comment :P
|
|
Op, your comment was wider enough to understand that you're talking about lots of other assertions, not the other |
|
@rocboronat ok let's just go with displayed for now. |
By including the isDisplayed condition as a requirement for onView, we filter any views that matches the text but are not displayed. A bit tricky though.
Because the usage is different from allOf. It's not a matcher filter, but a view filter.
Sloy
force-pushed
the
feature/repeated_views
branch
from
7c3b60d to
3174754
Compare
|
Rebased with master! Definitive review? |
| @@ -50,6 +50,14 @@ public void checkVisibleViews_breaksWhenNeeded() { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| @Test | |||
| public void checkVisible_withRepeatedViews() throws Exception { | |||
| assertNotDisplayed(R.id.repeated_view_1_gone); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great way to check it! And so easy, I guess! :·D
|
@Sloy great! Feel free to merge it! :·) |
This is a solution proposal for #37
The trick is to combine
firstViewOf()withallOf(), and include the verification as a condition.Yeah, that crazy. But it should work.