Implicit wait_for_condition

[sureshvv]

I am having to add a "wait_for_condition" before a "find_by" in many places after arbitrary test failures.

Can this be made implcit? like an additional wait=True for the find_by function?

Do you think this is a good idea? Any other way to do this?

[bubenkoff]

implicit wait is already there and enabled
just it depends on how exactly you work with browser object
to fully use it, your search expression should be full, like:

    assert browser.find_by_xpath("//div[@class='message success' and contains(text(), 'Saved.')]")

instead of

    assert browser.find_by_xpath("//div[@class='message success']").text ==  'Saved.'

feel the difference. First variant will use implicit wait feature of selenium, the second - only in part of finding the div, but not the div with the text

[sureshvv]

Thank you. Let me see if i can remove by wait_for_condition(s) using this.

[sureshvv]

What about methods such as find_link_by_text(). Found intermittent failures until I put a wait_for_condition. Should I change these to find_by_xpath()?

[bubenkoff]

    def find_link_by_text(self, text):
        return self.find_by_xpath(
            '//a[text()="%s"]' % text, original_find="link by text", original_query=text)

it's implementation already uses xpath, so it's fine
may be in this case you just need to increase implicit wait?

--splinter-implicit-wait
Selenium webdriver implicit wait. Seconds (default: 1).

1 second is not always enough

try with 5 via command line
if it helps, override a fixture (splinter_selenium_implicit_wait) to have it permanent

[bubenkoff]

probably it makes sense to increase the default implicit wait timeout btw

[blueyed]

probably it makes sense to increase the default implicit wait timeout btw

3 or 5 might be a better default, yes.
But it can lead to too much waiting in general, depending on your tests.
So I'd vote for use 3 as a compromise.

[bubenkoff]

Agree
In paylogic we use 5 but 3 should be sufficient
On May 2, 2015 1:09 AM, "Daniel Hahler" notifications@github.com wrote:

probably it makes sense to increase the default implicit wait timeout btw

3 or 5 might be a better default, yes.
But it can lead to too much waiting in general, depending on your tests.
So I'd vote for use 3 as a compromise.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#26 (comment)
.