I was just trying to fire an event after the qooxdoo application is ready, so I started with the "Hello World" app and appended the recommendation at the very end of the main function:
main : function(){
// Hello World part...
qx.event.Registration.addListener(window, "ready", function() { alert("application ready"); });
}
but, it didn't appear to fire in chrome or firefox (I didn't test IE), so I dug some more and found this and it worked.
if (qx && qx.event && qx.event.Registration)
{
var manager = qx.event.Registration.getManager(window);
var handler = manager.findHandler(window, "ready");
if (handler.isApplicationReady()) {
alert("application ready");
}
}
Can anyone tell my why the recommended method does not work or am I putting it in the wrong place?
Thanks!
Did you get the "recommendation" from the "From jquery to qooxdoo" document?! (It always helps if you cite your sources).
I think you are mixing things here. First, "window ready" is not the same as "application ready". I think "window ready" (as shown in a linked manual page) is a low-level event of the global JS window object. If you are running a high-level qooxdoo application (as it appears) this event has long passed when you register for it in your main method. So the event handler is never run.
In your second code sample you are not listening for an event, but checking a status with isApplicationReady(). This status can return true long after the event that turned the app from non-ready to ready has passed.
override simply the finalize function in the member area of the Application
finalize : function()
{
// Call super class
this.base(arguments);
alert("Hello World");
}
More simple!!!
QX Core Widget "appear" event is equal the same as "onReady" event such in other JS Frameworks like YUI, JQuery or whatever....
http://www.qooxdoo.org/5.0.2/api/#qx.ui.core.Widget~appear!event
has the same effect.
best, Tamer
Related
I have got a console application that to watch for another process to be alive and otherwise send an email (this is just implemented and working) and show a notification. I've used MessageBox.Show but it makes really Win3.1, I was wondering if someone succeeded in using Telerik's \
I've tried with this piece of code but nothing happens (even an exception)
RadDesktopAlert alert = new RadDesktopAlert();
alert.CaptionText = "Critical Error";
alert.ContentText = "Some text";
alert.Show();
Any suggestion?
You still need to add a RadDesktopManager
RadDesktopAlertManager manager = new RadDesktopAlertManager ();
manager.ShowAlert (alert);
I'm using Behat 3 and PhantomJS 2. Currently I have a scenario defined as such:
#javascript
Scenario: I visit the blog through the Blog & Events menu.
Given I am an anonymous user
And I am on the homepage
And I follow "Link Text"
Then I should be on "/path-to-page"
When I run this with Goutte it's fine. When I run this with vanilla Selenium, it's fine (it launches a browser I can see). However, when I configure Selenium to point the webdriver host to PhantomJS, it explodes on Then I should be on "/path-to-page" claiming it's still on /.
If I add the following wait step:
#javascript
Scenario: I visit the blog through the Blog & Events menu.
Given I am an anonymous user
And I am on the homepage
And I follow "Link Text"
And I wait 4 seconds
Then I should be on "/path-to-page"
Then my scenario passes in the green, all good.
Is there a way to get PhantomJS to wait for the page to load before checking the current path? I don't want to depend on arbitrary timeouts. I need a headless solution and PhantomJS seems to be pretty well supported, but if I can't do something as simple as clicking a link and verifying the page that was loaded without adding random waiting steps everywhere, I might need to re-evaluate my decision.
Try using this implicit wait in your feature context. In my experience it has helped.
/**
* #BeforeStep
*/
public function implicitlyWait($event)
{
// Set up implicit timeouts
$driver = $this->getSession()->getDriver()->getWebDriverSession();
$driver->timeouts()->implicit_wait(array("ms" => 10000));
}
I was having the same issue, and doing something like this fails because its using the state of the current url:
$this->getSession()->wait(10000, "document.readyState === 'complete'");
So my workaround for this was adding a variable to the page every time a step is done. When I link is clicked, the variable will no long exist, this will guarantee that am working with a different page.
/**
* #AfterStep
*/
public function setStepStatus()
{
$this->getSession()->evaluateScript('window.behatStepHasCompleted = true;');
}
/**
* #When /^(?:|I )wait for the page to be loaded$/
*/
public function waitForThePageToBeLoaded()
{
$this->getSession()->wait(10000, "!window.behatStepHasCompleted && document.readyState === 'complete'");
}
You can always make use of a closure function to encapsule your steps, just as mentioned in the docs. Through it, you can get your steps to run when they're ready. Let's implement a spinner function:
public function spinner($closure, $secs) {
for ($i = 0; $i <= $secs; $i++) {
try {
$closure();
return;
}
catch (Exception $e) {
if ($i == $secs) {
throw $e;
}
}
sleep(1);
}
}
What we're doing here is wait for a number of seconds for the closure function to run successfully. When the time's run out, throw an exception, for we want to know when something's not behaving correctly.
Now let's wrap your function to assert you're in the right page within the spinner:
public function iShouldBeOnPage($wantedUrl) {
$this->spinner(function() use($wantedUrl) {
$currentUrl = $this->getSession()->getCurrentUrl();
if ($currentUrl == $wantedUrl) {
return;
}
else {
throw new Exception("url is $currentUrl, not $wantedUrl");
}
}, 30);
What we're doing here is wait up to 30 seconds to be on the url we want to be after clicking the button. It will not wait for 30 secs, but for as many secs we need until current url is the url we need to be at. Applying it in your function within the *Context.php will result in it being applied in every step you call it within your Gherkin files.
I want to unit test a view model which contains a registration like:
public SampleViewModel(IUnityContainer container)
{
...
Observable.FromEventPattern<PropertyChangedEventArgs>(gridViewModel, "PropertyChanged")
.**ObserveOnDispatcher()**
.Subscribe(_ => this.Update());
...
}
When I run the unit test it tells me that "The current thread has no Dispatcher associated with it." when reaching this code.
One solution would be to use a Scheduler but I don't want to modify the Viewmodel.
Is there a solution to make the unit test pass this statement without getting an error?
I would suggest that you provide you own IScheduler implementation to ObserveOn(IScheduler) instead of using the ObserveOnDispatcher() operator. I have used techniques for loading a DispatcherFrame or a Dispatcher but the problem is that you are still using a Dispatcher. Eventually I found that you just "fall off the cliff" especially once you have long running background threads involved. Following the guidelines of "No threading in Unit tests" just dont let the dispatcher get near your ViewModels! Your Unit tests will run much, much faster.
A far superior way to deal with this is to inject an interface that gives access to your Dispatcher Scheduler (via the IScheduler interface). This allows you to substitute in an implementation that exposes the TestScheduler. You now can control time in your unit test. You can control and validate which actions are marshalled to each scheduler.
This is a really old (pre-Rx) post on 'Unit' testing WPF with Dispatcher calls from early 2009. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
https://leecampbell.com/2009/02/17/responsive-wpf-user-interfaces-part-5/
More information on Testing with Rx and the TestScheduler is found in my other site on Rx
http://introtorx.com/Content/v1.0.10621.0/16_TestingRx.html
This works for me.
When setting up the unit test I create an application to simulate the environment for my VM:
static Application App;
static void BeforeTestRun()
{
var waitForApplicationRun = new ManualResetEventSlim();
Task.Run(() =>
{
App = new Application();
App.Startup += (s, e) => { waitForApplicationRun.Set(); };
App.Run();
});
waitForApplicationRun.Wait();
}
and this is how I use it to instanciate the view model.
App.Dispatcher.Invoke(() => { this.viewModel = new ViewModel(); });
To properly unit test your viewmodel, you really need to be able to supply all of its dependencies. In this case, your viewmodel has a dependency upon the dispatcher. Making your viewmodel take a IScheduler dependency is the ideal way. But if you really don't want to do that, then try looking at this duplicate question: Unit test IObservable<T> with ObserveOnDispatcher
I found a solution for avoiding the error, simply from Unit Test code instantiate the ViewModel by using a dispatcher like:
SampleViewModel sampleViewModel;
var dispatcher = Application.Current != null ? Application.Current.Dispatcher : Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher;
dispatcher.Invoke((Action)(() => sampleViewModel = new SampleViewModel(this.container);
That's all and seems to work without modifying current code, maybe there are also better solutions.
I have a Silverlight 5 application that uses ImageTools for Silverlight to save a Canvas to a PNG image. I understand that I need to work with the Canvas on the UI thread and have the following code, which works:
if (saveFileDialog.ShowDialog() == true)
{
var stream = saveFileDialog.OpenFile();
writeableBitmap.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate
{
ExtendedImage extendedImage = writeableBitmap.ToImage();
new PngEncoder().Encode(extendedImage, stream);
});
}
The problem is that if the Canvas is very large it can take a noticeable time for the code in the BeginInvoke to complete. Since this is running on the UI thread it freezes the browser window during its execution.
After the user selects the location of where to save the exported image, I'd like to popup some child window that tells the user, "Please wait...", then run the image saving code posted above, and afterwards hide the child window automatically, but I'm not having much luck accomplishing that.
For starters, the BeginInvoke code runs asynchronously, so how do I know when it has completed?
If you need to call ToImage() on the UI Thread thats fine, but it doesnt mean you have to encode the image too.
Something like this will ensure the UI stays responsive.
if (saveFileDialog.ShowDialog() == true)
{
using (var stream = saveFileDialog.OpenFile())
{
writeableBitmap.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate
{
ExtendedImage extendedImage = writeableBitmap.ToImage();
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(item =>
{
new PngEncoder().Encode(extendedImage, stream);
});
});
}
}
I am working on a relatively large ExtJS MVC application with around >40 Controllers, >100 Stores, >100 Models and so on. I don't follow the possible MVC way strict so I implemented a lazy controller initialization which initialize the controller first when it is required and so the stores. I also don't register any view within any controller, but that simply cause I don't need to.
Now it comes that forms (opened within a Ext.window.Window) take around 1-2 second until they shown up while the same form within a rather small project pops up immediately.
So the form (layout) can not be the problem here what brought me to the events. But I don't really know how would be the best way or is there already a good tutorial how to do this. I guess it would be nice to profile this, to see how long the whole pipe takes (not only the EventPipe itself).
Event structure:
Most of the events get registered via control() of the responsible controller. All other events are at most registered with { single: true }. The windows get closed and reinstantiated when reused.
I'm afraid but ExtJS doesn't provide any event profiling. It use custom event system.
Here is how I see the solution of this issue.
There are Ext.util.Event class that provides functionality to dispatching and handling any event used in the framework and Ext.app.EventBus that provide single point to dispatch all framework events (fireEvent is just wrapper for Ext.app.EventBus.dispatch method).
Classes are private so I recommend to see its source code.
You can override these classes to see how much it takes from calling Ext.app.EventBus.dispatch method and calling event listener within Ext.util.Event.fire method smth like that (EventProfiler is supposed to be your own class)
Ext.app.EventBus
dispatch: function (/* event name or Ext.util.Event */event, /* Target class */ target, args) {
//start timing
var start = new Date();
/* ... */
for (i = 0, ln = events.length; i < ln; i++) {
event = events[i];
// Fire the event!
if (event.fire.apply(event, Array.prototype.slice.call(args, 1)) === false) {
return false;
}
// start event profiling
// here we are sure that event is dispatched and it's instance of Ext.util.Event
EventProfiler.startProfile(event, /* time passed from dispath method started */new Date() - start);
}
/* rest of dispatch method call */
}
Ext.util.Event
fire: function () {
/* ... */
if (listener.o) {
args.push(listener.o);
}
EventProfiler.endProfile(this);
if (listener && listener.fireFn.apply(listener.scope || me.observable, args) === false) {
return (me.firing = false);
}
/* ... */
}