Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Improving our functional test framework: XWikiWebDriver + Automated speed check

Hi, I do see the value in moving the generic methods outside of XWiki's page objects and into a common place where we keep "utility" methods, mostly for cleanup and refactoring purposes, so +1 for that. I am not entirely sure that the common place for "utility" methods should be an overload of RemoteWebDriver, instead of just an utility class/tool, just like we do now. The advantage right now is that we do not pollute the WebDriver API and it is very clear what is standard API and what is our utility package. IMO, this helps when debugging (seemingly) WebDriver related issues, as otherwise we might be confused into believing that we are using a standard WebDriver feature (which is not working well) when we are actually using something that we have added and needs to be fixed at our level. However, I also see the commondity in not having to know what is default and what is custom and just using one tool to do the job, so I am +0 for it. I am not sure I understand your 3rd bullet, since, AFAIK, whenever an element is failed to be found by the WebDriver API, we get an exception and the test generally fails. Are you talking here about the wrapper code and the default behavior for our utility methods? Need more details here, but all I have to say here is that we need to make sure we allow looking for possibly inexistent elements on the page, even if we are waiting (for some JS to execute). Thanks, Eduard On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:37 AM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: