JBossDeveloper

One short side note: I would rather prefer fluent API rather than "onioning". One simple reason : IDE support => improved productivity. So instead of having:

request().uri(contains("/rest/service")

how about:

request().uri().contains("/rest/service")

Another thing is that GWT trio is actually slightly different conceptually than

given(Activity).when(Filter).then(Inspect);

it's more about

given : initial context / test fixture / preconditions, you name it

when : something happens (we excercise our SUT/CUT whatever)

then : we verify some state or behaviour.

Maybe I don't understand the concept of Filter in this case, but it does not sound to me like an interaction, more some precondition / narrowing scope etc.

Other than that we should really consider writing it in other JVM language

Bartosz Majsak wrote:

 

Another thing is that GWT trio is actually slightly different conceptually than

given(Activity).when(Filter).then(Inspect);

 

it's more about

given : initial context / test fixture / preconditions, you name it

when : something happens (we excercise our SUT/CUT whatever)

then : we verify some state or behaviour.

 

Maybe I don't understand the concept of Filter in this case, but it does not sound to me like an interaction, more some precondition / narrowing scope etc.

Yea, it's a little bit backwards.

Given - You click a link

When - The HTTP Request matching *.jsp

Then - Inspect the behavior

Given / When doesn't match fully.

Given - This is a HTTP Request matching *.jsp

When - You click a link

Then - Inspect the behavior

?

That would make it:

given(Filter).when(Activity).then(Inspect)

Aslak Knutsen wrote:

 

Dan Allen wrote:

 

@RunWith(ArquillianWarp.class) // implies @RunAsClient
public class MyTest { ... }

-1

 

This force Warp to care about the TestRunner. It shouldn't.

 

 

Dan Allen wrote:

@RunWith(Arquillian.class)
@WarpEnabled // implies @RunAsClient

 

This should be possible, but not in current impl. Run mode is infered by @Deployment.testable=false or @RunAsClient on class/method level. Warp require testable=true to invoke the Packagaing SPIs, and RunAsClient is read directly from the Metohd / Class.

 

This features besically needs the same as the alternative language, a metadata layer for the TestClass/TestMethod: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ARQ-472

Cool. Let's get it fixed in core then, and require @RunAsClient for Arquillian <= 1.0.3.Final. I think this annotation really throws people off, esp when it's the only reasonable mode as is the case w/ Warp.

I did some more thinking about this last night and I have an alternate to the GWT style to consider.

Instead of when and then, we can look at it from a functional standpoint by using the terms client and server.

Warp.client(Activity).intercept(LifecycleInterceptor).server(Inspect);

As in:

Warp
    .client(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .intercept(FacesLifecycle.class)
    .server(new Inspect() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    });
}

We could also make it read like a sentence that would fit with "Warp" as the verb.

Warp
    .fromClient(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .toServer(new Inspect() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    })
    .via(FacesLifecycle.class);
}

I also like the idea of being able to check the response, coming back from the server, so we could add to that:

Warp.fromClient(Activity).toServer(Inspect).via(FacesLifecycle.class).onReturn(Inspect);

I'm having the most trouble with where to stick (or communicate) the interceptor / monitor / observer bit. Aside from that, I'm really keen on using the chain methods to describe where we are in the interaction (and letting the developer handle the GWT semantics).

As an alternative to the via() method, I'm also considering:

Warp
    .fromClient(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .toServer(new Inspect() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    })
    .probe(FacesLifecycle.class);
}

or

Warp
    .fromClient(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .toServer().probe(FacesLifecycle.class).inspect(new Inspector() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    });
}

One thing that might help, Lukas, is to clarify what role the "filter" (in my case the probe) is playing. That should help us fit it into the sentence.

(No matter how this turns out, I can't get over how powerful Warp is going to be. It's just...warping my mind )

Definitely like this flow, seems a bit more natural for what Warp is doing.

I'm wondering whether there need to be a few name changes such as:

Warp
    .fromClient(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .toServer(new Inspector() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    })
    .inspect(FacesLifecycle.class);

Basically change .via to .inspect, and to improve clarity change new Inspect() to new Inspector().

Seems like .via is saying what is to be inspected, so this seemed natural to me, but could be way off base.

Ken, I think you nailed it!

fromClient toServer doesn't sound right to me.

onClient inServer maybe..

The idea behind Filter is to limit which request to 'enrich' with the server side inspection. A single webdriver.click can trigger multiple requests to the server, e.g. css, js, images, ajax, jsp.

Warp only only activate the "toServer" inspection if the request match the filter.

The idea behind Filter is to limit which request to 'enrich' with the server side inspection. A single webdriver.click can trigger multiple requests to the server, e.g. css, js, images, ajax, jsp.

Warp only only activate the "toServer" inspection if the request match the filter.

Got it, so inspect is the right idea (even if not the ideal word).

Another way to write it is:

Warp.fromClient(Activity).toServer(Inspector).observing(FacesLifecycle.class, URLPatternFilter("*.jsf"));

"observing" indicates both which requests to intercept and which events to expose to the inspector.

fromClient toServer doesn't sound right to me.

 

onClient inServer maybe..

By themselves, it may not make sense. But if you think about how it plays into the theme / spirit of "Warp", then it reads as:

Warp.fromClient().toServer()

read as "Warp from client to server"

to include all bits:

Warp.fromClient(Activity).toServer(Inspector).observing(FacesLifecycle.class, URLPatternMatcher("*.jsf"))

read as "Warp from client activity to server inspector observing faces lifecycle on urls matching *.jsf"

(the matching part could be more fluent)

If that doesn't fit, then I would just drop down to Warp.client().server().inspect().

Warp
    .fromClient(new Activity() {
        public void perform() {
            browser.findElement(By.id("order")).click();
        }
    })
    .toServer(new Inspector() {
        @BeforePhase(Phase.RENDER_RESPONSE)
        public void checkOrder() {
            FacesContext context = FacesContext.getCurrentInstance();
            assertEquals(getMessageList().size(), 1);
        }); 
    })
    .observing(FacesLifecycle.class, forURLs("*.jsf"));

(If we decide to drop the "from" and "to" prefixes, then "observing" should be changed to "observe")