[Wtr-development] automatic waiting?

brett sykes brettcsykes at gmail.com
Sun Oct 17 18:33:52 EDT 2010

I'm a fan of this wait_until approach being built in as well. I've had this
problem too where generally assert_exists randomly throws when I'm trying to
interact with an element after I've checked to make sure that the page is
definitely loaded and all of the XHRs have completed loading etc. I monkey
patched my version to keep trying to locate the element without throwing for
a period of time. So, I think the approach you are describing makes a lot of


On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Jarmo <jarmo.p at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
> I have been thinking about making Watir wait automatically before
> throwing Exceptions. I don't know how you are dealing currently with
> the pages with Ajax/JavaScript usage, but i find myself quite often
> using some wait_until or similar solution. It has happened quite often
> that i create a test and it's ok, but then at some CI machine it fails
> intermittently and i end up inserting some wait_until in between
> assertions or anything else.
> The problem is that sometimes JavaScript is used to redirect/refresh
> or change the DOM. All these things are not blocking #wait if i'm not
> mistaken. If JavaScript redirect/refresh is used then there is a
> possibility that there will be some random errors because Watir loads
> the page and thinks everything is ready and doesn't block in #wait
> anymore, but right then the redirect is issued and something might
> break or might not break - depending of the timing.
> So, i was thinking - why not add some 5-10 seconds wait_until into
> somewhere to not throw Exception right away if the object doesn't
> exist? Or if the object isn't visible? So, if the test is failing then
> it waits maximum of 5-10 seconds befor actually failing and if test is
> ok, then it doesn't add any extra waiting time. And there's no need to
> put all those wait_until's into every here and there. If there's some
> longer Ajax call or anything then you can still use a wait_until in
> your test with longer timeout. So it shouldn't break any backwards
> compatibility either.
> What do you guys think? Is there any reason why not to implement
> something like that?
> Jarmo
> _______________________________________________
> Wtr-development mailing list
> Wtr-development at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/wtr-development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/wtr-development/attachments/20101017/8a99bdee/attachment.html>

More information about the Wtr-development mailing list