I am working on UIAutomation testing for my iPad app. There are APNS notifications received when one user shares files with other user. I need to look at what notifications are there and then tap on those notifications. I have done lot of research on this but I am unable to succeed. Is there any way to implement it ?
You can separate them by title property.
Example:
UIATarget.onAlert = function onAlert(alert) {
var title = alert.name();
//check by title, which alert is.
// test if your script should handle the alert, and if so, return true
// otherwise, return false to use the default handler
return false;
}
Related
I have an iOS app where I use only local notifications.
One of the features for this app is that I can create several notifications at once (the number of notifications can be from 1 to 20). Notification trigger is time stamp only.
I always add an attachment to each notification - a picture that is always being presented in the application database.
When a certain time comes, the notification trigger is triggered and this notification is shown to the user, usually once a day.
Sometimes (about 20% of cases) a picture is not displayed in the notification (does not matter if the screen is locked or not). This behavior is present in iOS12 - iOS14.
I did the following checks, which were successful:
no errors occurred while creating and adding an notification to UNUserNotificationCenter
check if a temporary URL image exists before creating UNNotificationAttachment
check if the picture exceeds 10Mb
check if an attachment exists for each pending Notification Requests that has already been added to the notification center
check if there is an access to the attachment of each pending Notification Requests that has already been added to the notification center
I've investigated an interesting case on iOS 13, after restarting the device, no one previously generated notification will show pictures. The debug shows that all UNNotificationAttachments in pending Notification Requests are present, but I do not have access to them. Obviously, not only I but also the OS do not have access. Very strange undocumented behavior.
I assume that over time the OS loses access to the UNNotificationAttachment files, but how to understand this? OS is not coping with its own security?
// how I check access for files in attachments
private func checkSavedAttachments() {
UNUserNotificationCenter.current().getPendingNotificationRequests {
(allScheduled) in
let attachments = allScheduled.map{ $0.content.attachments }.reduce([], +)
var accessDeniedCount = 0
attachments.forEach {
(attach) in
if attach.url.startAccessingSecurityScopedResource() {
print(attach.url)
}
else {
accessDeniedCount += 1
}
attach.url.stopAccessingSecurityScopedResource()
}
if accessDeniedCount > 0 {
fatalError()
}
}
}
Thanks for any help!
I followed the instructions to send notice of Firebase Notification following the instructions of Microsoft. But when the android device receives the notification does not light up the screen. I tried attaching WakeLock to turn on display but it didn't work?
All method are in the OnMessageReceived function.
var wakeLock = powerManager.NewWakeLock(WakeLockFlags.ScreenDim |
WakeLockFlags.AcquireCausesWakeup, "Demo");
wakeLock.Acquire(2 * 1000);
//////Send Notification here
wakeLock.Release();
Well you can use this method that uses power manager to turn on the screen light
private List<WakeLock> TurnDeviceLightOn(Context context)
{
PowerManager pm = (PowerManager)context.GetSystemService(Context.PowerService);
bool isScreenOn = pm.IsInteractive;
if (!isScreenOn)
{
WakeLock wl = pm.NewWakeLock(WakeLockFlags.Full | WakeLockFlags.AcquireCausesWakeup | WakeLockFlags.OnAfterRelease, "myLock");
wl.Acquire(10000);
WakeLock wl_cpu = pm.NewWakeLock(WakeLockFlags.Partial, "myCpuLock");
wl_cpu.Acquire(10000);
return new List<WakeLock>() { wl, wl_cpu };
}
return null;
}
This method returns the wake-locks which can be released at a later point of time
According to your description, your code can turn on screen when device is sleep, but for Firebase notification, you should know:
Notification messages are delivered to your onMessageReceived callback only when your app is in the foreground.
If your app is in the background or closed then a notification message is shown in the notification center, and any data from that message is passed to the intent that is launched as a result of the user tapping on the notification. So the onMessageReceived event is not fired. If you add your code in this event, I think it doesn't work.
Issue: Different Behavior In 3 Different Contexts
Ok so Ok, in iOS it seems three different things can happen regarding Push Notifications:
When a Push Notification is received when the app is not in the foreground
something shows up in Notification Center
if the app is opened by tapping the notification, either AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification(...) or AppDelegate.ReceivedRemoteNotification(...) is called, apparently depending on which one is implemented (??).
if the app is opened without tapping the notification, only AppDelegate.WillEnterForeground(...), is called, without any explicit mention of the notification, and nothing else happens to acknowledge that a notification was received.
When a Push Notification is received when the app is in the foreground it causes the UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate, if there is one, to execute UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate.WillPresentNotification(...).
Approach: Routing To One Method From All Contexts
So to cover all bases with Push I need to implement something in all three methods: AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification(...) / AppDelegate.ReceivedRemoteNotification(...), AppDelegate.WillEnterForeground(...), and UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate .WillPresentNotification(...).
Here are some stubs to show my approach to all this.
First, I created a custom UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate, with a Shared static member:
public class IncomingNotificationHandler : UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate
{
public static IncomingNotificationHandler Shared = new IncomingNotificationHandler();
...
}
Second, inside that class I made a handler that I can route to in every case (again, this is just a stub for debugging purposes):
//sets all parameters to null by default, so it can be called from methods
//that don't know anything about notifications:
public void HandleNotificationsIfAny(UIApplication application = null,
NSDictionary userInfo = null,
Action<UIBackgroundFetchResult> completionHandler = null)
{
//checks if userInfo is null, and logs its conclusions about that:
if (userInfo == null)
{
//In the null case, we can get pending notifications from
//UNUserNotificationCenter:
UNNotification[] pendingNotifications = new UNNotification[] { };
UNUserNotificationCenter.Current.GetDeliveredNotifications(returnedValue => pendingNotifications = returnedValue);
//Then we log the number of pending notifications:
Debug.WriteLine("IncomingNotificationHandler: HandleNotificationsIfAny(...): delivered notification count: " + pendingNotifications.Length);
//And make note of where this was probably called from:
Debug.WriteLine("IncomingNotificationHandler: HandleNotificationsIfAny(...): may have been called from this.WillPresentNotification(...) OR AppDelegate.WillEnterForeground(...)");
return;
});
}
else
{
//In the non-null case, we log the userInfo
Debug.WriteLine("IncomingNotificationHandler: HandleNotificationsIfAny(...): just got info: " + userInfo);
//And make note of where this was probably called from:
Debug.WriteLine("IncomingNotificationHandler: HandleNotificationsIfAny(...): may have been called from AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification(...)");
}
}
Third, inside the same class, I implemented the single method that's required by UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate, and I routed to the handler from it:
public override void WillPresentNotification(UNUserNotificationCenter center, UNNotification notification, Action<UNNotificationPresentationOptions> completionHandler)
{
HandleNotificationsIfAny();
}
Fourth, and last, inside AppDelegate, I routed to the same handler from both relevant methods:
//I prefer using DidReceiveRemoteNotification because in my experience
//the other one is sometimes not reliable:
public override void DidReceiveRemoteNotification(UIApplication application,
NSDictionary userInfo,
Action<UIBackgroundFetchResult> completionHandler)
{
//Simply passing on all the parameters called in this method:
IncomingNotificationHandler.Shared.HandleNotificationsIfAny(application, userInfo, completionHandler);
}
//WillEnterForeground also calls the handler without any parameters
//because it doesn't automatically know anything about notifications:
public override void WillEnterForeground(UIApplication application)
{
IncomingNotificationHandler.Shared.HandleNotificationsIfAny();
}
With that, as it stands, I think I'm handling a notification event in the same way no matter how my app is alerted about it, and even when it's not alerted at all.
Does anyone know if I now have it covered, or if there's some other cases I need to handle?
For the first scenario: AppDelegate.ReceivedRemoteNotification
It reflects the objective c method: application:didReceiveRemoteNotification:, but this event has been deprecated since iOS 10: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiapplicationdelegate/1623117-application?language=objc. So I think there's no need to handle this event.
For the second scenario: AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification
You can still utilize it to handle notifications now if you haven't implemented UNUserNotificationCenter and please notice it is only valid after iOS 7+. Moreover, this event will be triggered when app is on the foreground and if your app is on the background, this event only fires when the user clicks the notification to open your application. And there's no way to access the notification's information if the user clicks the icon to open the app.
I don't think handling AppDelegate.WillEnterForeground is a good approach, as it will be called each time the app resumes from background to foreground even though there are no notifications.
For the scenario: UNUserNotificationCenterDelegate
You could only use this feature after iOS 10. Once you have implemented it on the device iOS 10+, DidReceiveRemoteNotification and ReceivedRemoteNotification will never be triggered. WillPresentNotification will be called when app is on the foreground. DidReceiveNotificationResponse will be fired when the app is on the background and user clicks notifications to open it.
As a conclusion, if you want to easily handle the notification AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification is enough. If you want to consume the new features of UNUserNotificationCenter, AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification and UNUserNotificationCenter should be both involved. The prior one for the iOS 7+ devices and the later one for iOS 10+ devices.
Update:
For iOS 10+, you could use UNUserNotificationCenter.Current.GetDeliveredNotifications to obtain the notifications that are still displayed in Notification Center. And if you only want to support iOS version 10 and later. I think UNUserNotificationCenter is enough, there's no need to implement AppDelegate.DidReceiveRemoteNotification(...) or AppDelegate.ReceivedRemoteNotification(...).
If the app is on background / killed state and the user clicks notification to
open the app, DidReceiveNotificationResponse will be called.
If the
user clicks icon to open your app and the app is killed you should
place your logic code in FinishedLaunching.
If the user clicks icon
to open your app and app is on background, you can handle
WillEnterForeground as you did before.
If the app is on foreground,
handle WillPresentNotification.
I am writing UI test cases using the new Xcode 7 UI Testing feature. At some point of my app, I ask the user for permission of camera access and push notification. So two iOS popups will show up: "MyApp Would Like to Access the Camera" popup and "MyApp Would Like to Send You Notifications" popup. I'd like my test to dismiss both popups.
UI recording generated the following code for me:
[app.alerts[#"cameraAccessTitle"].collectionViews.buttons[#"OK"] tap];
However, [app.alerts[#"cameraAccessTitle"] exists] resolves to false, and the code above generates an error: Assertion Failure: UI Testing Failure - Failure getting refresh snapshot Error Domain=XCTestManagerErrorDomain Code=13 "Error copying attributes -25202".
So what's the best way of dismissing a stack of system alerts in test? The system popups interrupt my app flow and fail my normal UI test cases immediately. In fact, any recommendations regarding how I can bypass the system alerts so I can resume testing the usual flow are appreciated.
This question might be related to this SO post which also doesn't have an answer: Xcode7 | Xcode UI Tests | How to handle location service alert?
Thanks in advance.
Xcode 7.1
Xcode 7.1 has finally fixed the issue with system alerts. There are, however, two small gotchas.
First, you need to set up a "UI Interuption Handler" before presenting the alert. This is our way of telling the framework how to handle an alert when it appears.
Second, after presenting the alert you must interact with the interface. Simply tapping the app works just fine, but is required.
addUIInterruptionMonitorWithDescription("Location Dialog") { (alert) -> Bool in
alert.buttons["Allow"].tap()
return true
}
app.buttons["Request Location"].tap()
app.tap() // need to interact with the app for the handler to fire
The "Location Dialog" is just a string to help the developer identify which handler was accessed, it is not specific to the type of alert.
I believe that returning true from the handler marks it as "complete", which means it won't be called again. For your situation I would try returning false so the second alert will trigger the handler again.
Xcode 7.0
The following will dismiss a single "system alert" in Xcode 7 Beta 6:
let app = XCUIApplication()
app.launch()
// trigger location permission dialog
app.alerts.element.collectionViews.buttons["Allow"].tap()
Beta 6 introduced a slew of fixes for UI Testing and I believe this was one of them.
Also note that I am calling -element directly on -alerts. Calling -element on an XCUIElementQuery forces the framework to choose the "one and only" matching element on the screen. This works great for alerts where you can only have one visible at a time. However, if you try this for a label and have two labels the framework will raise an exception.
Objective - C
-(void) registerHandlerforDescription: (NSString*) description {
[self addUIInterruptionMonitorWithDescription:description handler:^BOOL(XCUIElement * _Nonnull interruptingElement) {
XCUIElement *element = interruptingElement;
XCUIElement *allow = element.buttons[#"Allow"];
XCUIElement *ok = element.buttons[#"OK"];
if ([ok exists]) {
[ok tap];
return YES;
}
if ([allow exists]) {
[allow tap];
return YES;
}
return NO;
}];
}
-(void)setUp {
[super setUp];
self.continueAfterFailure = NO;
self.app = [[XCUIApplication alloc] init];
[self.app launch];
[self registerHandlerforDescription:#"“MyApp” would like to make data available to nearby Bluetooth devices even when you're not using app."];
[self registerHandlerforDescription:#"“MyApp” Would Like to Access Your Photos"];
[self registerHandlerforDescription:#"“MyApp” Would Like to Access the Camera"];
}
Swift
addUIInterruptionMonitorWithDescription("Description") { (alert) -> Bool in
alert.buttons["Allow"].tap()
alert.buttons["OK"].tap()
return true
}
Gosh.
It always taps on "Don't Allow" even though I deliberately say tap on "Allow"
At least
if app.alerts.element.collectionViews.buttons["Allow"].exists {
app.tap()
}
allows me to move on and do other tests.
For the ones who are looking for specific descriptions for specific system dialogs (like i did) there is none :) the string is just for testers tracking purposes. Related apple document link : https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xctest/xctestcase/1496273-adduiinterruptionmonitor
Update : xcode 9.2
The method is sometimes triggered sometimes not. Best workaround for me is when i know there will be a system alert, i add :
sleep(2)
app.tap()
and system alert is gone
God! I hate how XCTest has the worst time dealing with UIView Alerts. I have an app where I get 2 alerts the first one wants me to select "Allow" to enable locations services for App permissions, then on a splash page the user has to press a UIButton called "Turn on location" and finally there is a notification sms alert in a UIViewAlert and the user has to select "OK". The problem we were having was not being able to interact with the system Alerts, but also a race condition where behavior and its appearance on screen was untimely. It seems that if you use the alert.element.buttons["whateverText"].tap the logic of XCTest is to keep pressing until the time of the test runs out. So basically keep pressing anything on the screen until all the system alerts are clear of view.
This is a hack but this is what worked for me.
func testGetPastTheStupidAlerts() {
let app = XCUIApplication()
app.launch()
if app.alerts.element.collectionViews.buttons["Allow"].exists {
app.tap()
}
app.buttons["TURN ON MY LOCATION"].tap()
}
The string "Allow" is completely ignored and the logic to app.tap() is called evreytime an alert is in view and finally the button I wanted to reach ["Turn On Location"] is accessible and the test pass
~Totally confused, thanks Apple.
The only thing I found that reliably fixed this was to set up two separate tests to handle the alerts. In the first test, I call app.tap() and do nothing else. In the second test, I call app.tap() again and then do the real work.
On xcode 9.1, alerts are only being handled if the test device has iOS 11. Doesn't work on older iOS versions e.g 10.3 etc. Reference: https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/86989
To handle alerts use this:
//Use this before the alerts appear. I am doing it before app.launch()
let allowButtonPredicate = NSPredicate(format: "label == 'Always Allow' || label == 'Allow'")
//1st alert
_ = addUIInterruptionMonitor(withDescription: "Allow to access your location?") { (alert) -> Bool in
let alwaysAllowButton = alert.buttons.matching(allowButtonPredicate).element.firstMatch
if alwaysAllowButton.exists {
alwaysAllowButton.tap()
return true
}
return false
}
//Copy paste if there are more than one alerts to handle in the app
#Joe Masilotti's answer is correct and thanks for that, it helped me a lot :)
I would just like to point out the one thing, and that is the UIInterruptionMonitor catches all system alerts presented in series TOGETHER, so that the action you apply in the completion handler gets applied to every alert ("Don't allow" or "OK"). If you want to handle alert actions differently, you have to check, inside the completion handler, which alert is currently presented e.g. by checking its static text, and then the action will be applied only on that alert.
Here's small code snippet for applying the "Don't allow" action on the second alert, in series of three alerts, and "OK" action on the remaining two:
addUIInterruptionMonitor(withDescription: "Access to sound recording") { (alert) -> Bool in
if alert.staticTexts["MyApp would like to use your microphone for recording your sound."].exists {
alert.buttons["Don’t Allow"].tap()
} else {
alert.buttons["OK"].tap()
}
return true
}
app.tap()
This is an old question but there is now another way to handle these alerts.
The system alert isn't accessibly from the app context of the app you are launched in, however you can access the app context anyway. Look at this simple example:
func testLoginHappyPath() {
let app = XCUIApplication()
app.textFields["Username"].typeText["Billy"]
app.secureTextFields["Password"].typeText["hunter2"]
app.buttons["Log In"].tap()
}
In a vacuum with a simulator already launched and permissions already granted or denied, this will work. But if we put it in a CI pipeline where it gets a brand new simulator, all of the sudden it won't be able to find that Username field because there's a notification alert popping up.
So now there's 3 choices on how to handle that:
Implicitly
There's already a default system alert interrupt handler. So in theory, simply trying to typeText on that first field should check for an interrupting event and handle it in the affirmative.
If everything works as designed, you won't have to write any code but you'll see an interruption logged and handled in the log, and your test will take a couple seconds more.
Explicitly via interruptionmonitor
I won't rewrite the previous work on this, but this is where you explicitly set up an interruptionmonitor to handle the specific alert being popped up - or whatever alerts you expect to happen.
This is useful if the built-in handler doesn't do what you want - or doesn't work at all.
Explicitly via XCUITest framework
In xCode 9.0 and above, you can switch between app contexts fluidly by simply defining multiple XCUIApplication() instances. Then you can locate the field you need via familiar methods. So to do this explicitly would look like the following:
func testLoginHappyPath() {
let app = XCUIApplication()
let springboardApp = XCUIApplication(bundleidentifier: "com.apple.springboard")
if springboardApp.alerts[""FunHappyApp" would like permission to own your soul."].exists {
springboardApp.alerts.buttons["Allow"].tap()
}
app.textFields["Username"].typeText["Billy"]
app.secureTextFields["Password"].typeText["hunter2"]
app.buttons["Log In"].tap()
}
Sounds like the approach to implementing camera access and notifications are threaded as you say, but not physically managed and left to chance when and how they are displayed.
I suspect one is triggered by the other and when it is programatically clicked it wipes out the other one as well (which Apple would probably never allow)
Think of it you're asking for a users permission then making the decision on their behalf? Why? Because you can't get your code to work maybe.
How to fix - trace where these two components are triggering the pop up dialogues - where are they being called?, rewrite to trigger just one, send an NSNotification when one dialogue has been completed to trigger and display the remaining one.
I would seriously discourage the approach of programatically clicking dialogue buttons meant for the user.
How can I set local notifications with out forcing user to open app.
I need my app set a local notification for sunrise and sunset, but I don't want to ask people open app.
I know I can have up to 64 notifications via scheduleLocalNotification, but I need to set it for a year so I should be able to run app in background and set alarms for future sunrises and sunsets in background.
The simple answer is you can't. Your app can't run whenever it wants in the background; it can't schedule a timer to wake itself up to post more notifications when they are due.
The only way you could come close to something like this is by having a server which send a background push notification to your app as a wake-up call when a new batch of 64 notifications are coming close to needed to be posted.
However this would be relying on the fact the user doesn't terminate your app. If the user does then you'd have to send a non-background push notification to the user and hope they click on it to launch your app.
Android Awareness API has recently announced new features that provide a simple solution for your use-case (that avoids you having to explicitly manage location request or computing sunrise times). The way to achieve what you're trying to do is to create and register a TimeFence specified relative to sunrise/sunset.
For example:
// Create TimeFence
AwarenessFence sunriseFence =
TimeFence.aroundTimeInstant(TimeFence.TIME_INSTANT_SUNRISE,
0, 5 * ONE_MINUTE_MILLIS);
// Register fence with Awareness.
Awareness.FenceApi.updateFences(
mGoogleApiClient,
new FenceUpdateRequest.Builder()
.addFence("fenceKey", sunriseFence, myPendingIntent)
.build())
.setResultCallback(new ResultCallback<Status>() {
#Override
public void onResult(#NonNull Status status) {
if (status.isSuccess()) {
Log.i(TAG, "Fence was successfully registered.");
} else {
Log.e(TAG, "Fence could not be registered: " + status);
}
}
});
You will get callbacks when the fence evaluates to TRUE at sunrise, and when it evaluates back to FALSE at 5-min after sunrise.
Please check Fence API code snippets docs for how to add your custom app logic.