Yeah it creates problem but in very few cases.So I turn off SI for that particular object
Example there are two webButtons with exactly same properties and values
In that case we need to turn off and set the properties accordingly.
but see again here I had to change the properties so I turned off the SI
But I have many times scene that SI helps me in my script.I can see it my test results [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]
Surely the problem is when you don't know it's a problem? What about the following scenario;
There are two webbuttons, A & B. You have script which clicks on A but the system has regressed and A is no longer displayed. When the script runs, the object for A cannot be found but SI decides that B is a close enough match so continues with script. The system has regressed but QTP does not report this.
If you use the correct idnetifiers in the OR, why do you have the need for SI?
You have also mentioned almost the same scenario as mine [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
But as I said in this case I will change the properties accordingly so that QTP always clicks on the button that we need.
so in this case it always better to turn of SI.
but just tell one thing that do you always go to each and every object and modify its mandatory properties that were recorded by Quick Test.
Atleast I dont. Once I add the object(unless there is some spcial case that we just discussed) in the OR I dont go to each and every object and set its properties I leave it on QTP to find it and perform the operation.
It happens quite often with me that in some cases QTP is unable to reconize an object based on mandatory properties and hence it uses SI feature. Now why would I go to each and every object and change the OR so that QTP should not use SI.
yes we need to modify properties but in special cases that we know and the one that you mentioned is a classic example for that
Well, normally I use DP, but am now using the OR. From what I have scene, QTP is pretty crap at selecting an identifier to reference an object, so yes, I am going in and changing the identifier to something more sensible. QTP seems to have a great love of indexes to identify an object where as some simple thought or a a regular expression would also work.
I'm trying to make a robust framework here so the effort is well spent on making the OR robust
Yeah you can say robbie
we need to set the QTP mandatory properties if e know that the properties of the objects are going to change in future to some extent.
But my case is different. I know it is not going to change
Also after running multiple iterations of the test script we get to know that what objects are creating problems for QTP in indentification. So for those I use SetToProperty method or change the object's properties
So I prefer playing with the properties of those objects only and not for the ones for which Quick test never creates any problem.
Robbie you said that you use DP always.
Dont you think using full fledged DP makes the run a little slower.
Yes, I use DP too but for the same type of objects that are repeated in alomist every page.
Like Submit,Cancel Etc