In one of the learning tutorials, I learned that invisibilityOfElementLocated(By.<locator>) has more performance improvements than the invisibilityOf(<web_element>).
Please can anyone explain why is this so?
The code is basically the same. The only difference is that invisibilityOfElementLocated() takes a locator so it has to first locate the element (driver.findElement(locator)) before checking .isDisplayed(). invisibilityOf() takes an element so the .findElement() step is already done. So technically invisibilityOfElementLocated() would be faster because it's one step shorter. Having said that, 25ms or whatever to find an element on the page is going to be negligible compared to browsing to even a single page.
return !(driver.findElement(locator).isDisplayed());
invisibilityOfElementLocated() source
vs
return isInvisible(element);
invisibilityOf() source
where isInvisible() is
return !element.isDisplayed();
isInvisible() source
Related
I don't understand this issue:
Issue: HIS Metriken - Cyclomatic (CR-MET4): [function_name] 13>10
It appears in Klocwork analysis while checking the issues of Code: METRICS.E.HIS_Metriken___Cyclomatic__CR_MET4_
Can anyone support?
Thanks
Do you see all those ifs, elses, loops in that function?
Those are the problem, you need to either design this function's logic more elegantly or split it into more functions with well-defined purposes.
By the way, I can only see that problematic function of yours because I am especially clairvoyant. For this kind of question you should normally show your code, just to be fair towards all those other users which cannot read your mind like I did.
Naaa, not really. The cyclomatic complexity is a measure for number of potential paths through your function. And that you have crossed the treshold of 10 by 3 means your function must be full of control structs, which create many paths.
I've been drawing a sequence diagram of a module recently, while reverse engineering.
I encountered a control statement, and it is like,
if (func_A() == True)
{
DoSomeThing();
}
else
{
DoSomeThingElse();
}
The problem is how to draw the condition?
As I mentioned, It is reverse engineering. The code cannot be modified now.
I drew two diagrams, and I don't know which way is right,
The first one is this, I think it's wrong because it doesn't show the function call as a message from A to B.
This is the second, It shows a message func_A.
What do you think about to do this right?
To complete the other answer there is anyway a problem in the second proposal because we do not know if in [func_A() == True] you reuse the value return by the previous call or you do a second call, to avoid that add the explicit return in your diagram :
Out of that do you know the activities ? A sequence diagram is "just" an interaction while an activity is a behavior and can be more adapted :
It depends. If func_A is an operation defined in Object2 the second representation would be correct. The first does not tell where the operation is defined. Most likely (!) one would interpret func_A as an operation local to ObjectA which your code seems to say. (Btw. you have two completely different object sets AB vs. 12 in your examples.) But that is uncertain. So the 2nd variant is more explicit (and correct).
In any case I advise to not overdo SDs with fragments as "graphical programming" doesn't make things easier to read (my practical experience). It's excellent to show message flows in various collaborations. But when it comes to conditions it's getting messy very soon. A better way is to create different sub-diagrams or even use pseudo code if there are too nested if conditions. In many cases such if clauses are a good fit for state machines.
This might be frivolous question, so please have understanding for my poor soul.
After reading this article about Intelligent Design sort (http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/intelligentdesignsort.html) which is in no way made to be serious in any way, I started wondering whether this could be possible.
An excerpt from article says:
The probability of the original input list being in the exact order it's in is 1/(n!). There is such a small likelihood of this that it's clearly absurd to say that this happened by chance, so it must have been consciously put in that order by an intelligent Sorter.
Let's for a second forget about intelligent Sorter, and think about possibility that random occurrences of members in array are in some way sorted. Our algorithm should determine the pattern without changing array's structure.
Is there any way to do this? Speed is not a requirement.
The implementation is very easy actually. The entire point of the article is that you don't actually sort anything. In other words, a correct implementation is a simple NOP. As my preferred language is Java, I'll show a simple in-place implementation in Java as a lambda function:
list->{}
Funny article, I had a good laugh.
If the only thing you're interested in is that whether your List is sorted, then you could simply keep an internal sorted flag (defaulted to true for an empty list) and override your add() method to check if the element you're adding fits the ordering of the List - that is, compare it to the adjacent elements and setting the sorted flag appropriately.
I have this code
n_userobject inv_userobject[]
For i = 1 to dw_1.Rowcount()
inv_userobject[i] = create n_userobject
.
.
.
NEXT
dw_1.rowcount() returns only 210 rows. Its so odd that in the range of 170 up, the application stop and crashes on inv_userobject[i] = create n_userobject.
My question, is there any limit on array or userobject declaration using arrays?
I already try destroying it after the loop so as to check if that will be a possible solution, but it is still crashing.
Or how can i be able to somehow refresh the userobject?
Or is there anyone out there encounter this?
Thanks for all your help.
First, your memory problem. You're definitely not running into an array limit. If I was to take a guess, one of the instance variables in n_userobject isn't being cleaned up properly (i.e. pointing to a class that isn't being destroyed when the parent class is destroyed) or pointing to a class that similarly doesn't clean itself up. If you've got PB Enterprise, I'd do a profiling trace with a smaller loop and see what is being garbage collected (there's a utility called CDMatch that really helps this process).
Secondly, let's face it, you're just doing this to avoid writing a reset method. Even if you get this functional, it will never be as efficient as writing your own reset method and reusing the same instance over again. Yes, it's another method you'll have to maintain whenever the instance variable list changes or the defaults change, but you'll easily gain that back in performance.
Good luck,
Terry.
I'm assuming the crash you're facing is at the PBVM level, and not a regular PB exception (which you can catch in your code). If I'm wrong, please add the exception details.
A loop of 170-210 iterations really isn't a large one. However, crashes within loops are usually the result of resource exhaustion. What we usually do in long loops is call GarbageCollect() occasionally. How often should it be called depends on what your code does - using it frequently could allow the use of less memory, but it will slow down the run. Read this for more.
If this doesn't help, make sure the error does not come from some non-PB code (imported DLL or so). You can check the stack trace during the crash to see the exception's origin.
Lastly, if you're supported by Sybase (or a local representative), you can send them a crash dump. They can analyze it, and see if it's a bug in PB, and if so, let you know when it was (or will be) fixed.
What I would normally do with a DataWindow is to create an object that processes the data in a row and call it for each row.
the only suggestion i have for this is to remove the rowcount from the for (For i = 1 to dw_1.Rowcount()) this will cause the code to recount the rows every time it uses one. get the count into a variable and then use the variable. it should run a bit better and be far more easy to debug.
I was thinking to implement MD5 as a code kata and wanted to use BDD to drive the design (I am a BDD newb).
However, the only test I can think of starting with is to pass in an empty string, and the simplest thing that will work is embedding the hash in my program and returning that.
The logical extension of this is that I end up embedding the hash in my solution for every test and switching on the input to decide what to return. Which of course will not result in a working MD5 program.
One of my difficulties is that there should only be one public function:
public static string MD5(input byte[])
And I don't see how to test the internals.
Is my approach completely flawed or is MD5 unsuitable for BDD?
I believe you chose a pretty hard exercise for a BDD code-kata. The thing about code-kata, or what I've understood about it so far, is that you somehow have to see the problem in small incremental steps, so that you can perform these steps in red, green, refactor iterations.
For example, an exercise of finding an element position inside an array, might be like this:
If array is empty, then position is 0, no matter the needle element
Write test. Implementation. Refactor
If array is not empty, and element does not exist, position is -1
Write test. Implementation. Refactor
If array is not empty, and element is the first in list, position is 1
Write test. Implementation. Refactor
I don't really see how to break the MD5 algorithm in that kind of steps. But that may be because I'm not really an algorithm guy. If you better understand the steps involved in the MD5 algorithm, then you may have better chances.
It depends on what you mean with unsuitable... :-) It is suitable if you want to document a few examples that describes your implementation. It should also be possible to have the algorithm emerge from your specifciation if you add one more character for each test.
By just adding a switch statement you're just trying to "cheat the system". Using BDD/TDD does not mean you have to implement stupid things. Also the fact that you have hardcoded hash values as well as a switch statement in your code are clear code smells and should be refactored and removed. That is how your algorithm should emerge because when you see the hard coded values you first remove them (by calculating the value) and then you see that they are all the same so you remove the switch statement.
Also if your question is about finding good katas I would recommend lokking in the Kata catalogue.