Request for additional waits: checked(), selected(), disabled() ...etc.

[simoami]

While automating an internal application, I found myself having to write workarounds for some basic use cases. It's common that the user would want to check the state of form elements when automating UI or wait for the desired state condition to take place. One such case is the state of checkboxes.

I suggest adding the following waits to avoid the need for workarounds:

• checked()
• selected()
• disabled()
• containsHtml() (in contrast to .html() this is for partial matching)
• containsText() (in contrast to .text() this is for partial matching)

Let me know what you think!

[justinbmeyer]

I believe you can add ":checked" as part of your selector:

F("[name=over21]:checked").exists()

And other similar custom jQuery selector extensions.

[simoami]

that's what I meant by workaround. There are selectors like :visible and :hidden, yet FuncUnit adds visible() and invisible() which is great.

jasmine-jquery has such wrappers for reference.

My request is for FuncUnit to be as intuitive as possible and to allow for simple actions to be performed without resorting to special selectors. Following the BDD principles, I want to see more stakeholders (less tech-savvy) write functional tests, or at least be able to read them easily.

[alexisabril]

I'm not opposed to having form or other generally used waits. containsHtml() seems a bit overkill though, as this comes a bit into conflict with ordinary selector usage:

F('.parent .child') vs F('.parent').containsHtml('<div class="child">')

I'm in favor of a containsText(), perhaps written as .contains(), as :contains(text) is a commonly used jQuery selector.

[simoami]

Until someone finds a real use case for it, I'm not too tied to adding containsHtml(). But the others make sense imo.

Thanks for considering.

[simoami]

similar to disabled() is enabled(), to avoid having to pass a boolean flag to disabled().

Also, here's a separate thought for better language support (similar to expect):

F().enabled();
F().hasClass('classname', false);

why not add a 'not' switch, so one can read:

F().not.enabled();
F().not.hasClass('classname');

not would only have effect on getters.