Testing multiple concurrent browser sessions - ruby-on-rails

I'm developing a card-game in Ruby on Rails, and trying to work out how best to test it.
When a player joins a game, their Player object is stored in the session. Obviously, in order for the game to work, I need more than one Player in a game at once. Since sessions are the same for different tabs in one browser, I'm currently testing a 2-player game by having the app open in FireFox and Internet Explorer at the same time.
Before I go off and download Chrome in order to test a third player... is there an easier way of doing this?
Edit: To clarify, I'm not yet at the stage where I want to run automated tests to see if it breaks. I'm at the stage where I want to be able to hack the back-end db, then refresh the page and see how it looks now, or click a button to see the (usually) failure response, or whether the behaviour is looking right.

You can run Firefox with multiple profiles. From a command line go to the directory Firefox is installed in and run firefox -P. Create a profile for every instance that you want to run. Close the profile manager, then for each profile run firefox -no-remote -P "profile name". You can run as many instances of Firefox as you want, and each one runs with an independent profile and thus independent session.

Automate it!
You really don't want to be manually testing this. You could use a Ruby script with the curl libs to generate the 'moves' and manage the response including the session cookie.
As a teaser, see this snippet from the API docs, sounds like it would help you..
easy.cookiejar = "cookiejar.file" => "pwd string"
Set a cookiejar file to use for this Curl::Easy instance.
This file will be used to persist cookies.

Use http://watir.com/ to create ruby scripts exercising your game.
Use multiple Watir::Browser instances to run multiple browsers.
Use firefox' profiles and -no-remote switch to keep them separated. See also this question.

Rather than opening a new tab, create a new window in your Web browser. The new window will have its own session. This works for Internet Explorer, but not for Firefox. I haven't tested it in the WebKit based browsers.

Related

"Cached element do not exists in DOM" when run Appium with Robot Framework

I'm working on automated test using Appium with Robot framework on Android device. I create schedule run on Jenkins. My test flow is entering some data in page A and submit, then switch to page B to check the result and switch to page A to enter a new data. I repeat this loop for around 10+ time. Everything works fine in around 4-5 rounds but after that there show up an error :
StaleElementReferenceException: Message: Cached element 'By.xpath:
//android.widget.TextView[#text='Limit']' do not exists in DOM anymore
The TextView is in the page A. I monitored the robot and saw that the TextView was shown up but the robot did not see it. I tried restart the device but the problem is not solved. I search through the internet and found some who facing the same issue but they use different programming language like Java or Python. I have no idea what I have to do next.
Development Tools :
Appium version: 1.21.0
Robot Framework version: 4.1.2 (Python 3.10.0 on win32)
First I do not use Robot Framework, but the code should be similar according to this https://robocorp.com/docs/languages-and-frameworks/robot-framework/try-except-finally-exception-catching-and-handling.
Second, I'm not sure if this is the best way to get around this. I think there is something you can do with the expected conditions class to get around this in a "cleaner way" but I'm not quite familiar with it enough to show/tell you. Instead what I've done is something like this...
from selenium.common.exceptions import StaleElementReferenceException
while some_limiting_factor:
try:
# logic for submitting page A, assertions for page B
except StaleElementReferenceException:
element = driver.find_element('By.xpath: //android.widget.TextView[#text='Limit']' )
As much as I want to cache elements in appium, it seems that the service itself does NOT want you to, at least not in my experience. Getting a fresh element(s) every time seems to ensure a "slow but steady" test. Hopefully someone can show me the deep appium secrets one day.

Can Rails pass a shell command to the local machine?

I am trying to get rails to select document attachments, then kick off the email client with the documents attached.
I have it working on my development laptop. If I build a string with the appropriate parameters and pass that to system() then it kicks off the email client with the attachments..
The string looks something like
#email_content = "C:\Program Files (x86)\IBM\Lotus\Notes\notes.exe"
"Mailto:?Attach=C:\Users\cm\RubymineProjects\technical_library\public\images\1\8302_printed.pdf
The first part calls the notes exe and the second part starts and email with the attachments. That worked fine on my laptop.
However, when I moved it to the server, it isn't kicking off the email client. I believe that it is because the shell commands are trying to execute on the server, not on the client.
Is it possible to run a shell command on the client machine? I am trying to get this working with Windows first and then the Mac environmemnt. I tried changing the C:\ to the machine name. i.e. \chrislaptop\Program Files (x86)\IBM\Lotus\Notes\notes.exe. but that didn't work.
No, fortunately that is not possible.
Imagine what happens when a request to some random page on the internet could trigger shell scripts on your local computer...
Arbitrary code execution escaping the browser is too invasive-- your app should not have access to the client's machine.
However, some applications may support URIs that open specific applications outside the browser. You generally see this more on mobile devices, but Spotify for example supports links that look like: spotify:artist:5lsC3H1vh9YSRQckyGv0Up which asks the user whether it is ok to open the Spotify application.
https://news.spotify.com/us/2008/01/14/linking-to-spotify/

How to debug Firefox add-on update

I'm developing a migration update from XUL to Jetpack. I want to simulate the process on my local machine, make sure that everything works as expected when the versions change.
I followed all the steps of this tutorial:
http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/automatic-firefox-extension-updates/ in order to make a self hosted update version. But the extension won't update and I'm not getting any errors.
How can I debug, or at least initiate the update process for an add-on?
First of all, you should toggle on the extensions.logging.enabled preference. This will dump a lot of information about the update process and states into the Browser Console.
After enabling the preference, just open the Add-ons Manager UI and search for updates again.
But to test that stuff still works from going from one version to another, I would just install the old version (in a new profile) and then drop the new version XPI. This will trigger the same code paths as would have been triggered if the update XPI was retrieved over the network.

Is Start (Dart framework) autoreload on the server side?

Is start (Dart server side framework) auto-refresh when one of our source code changed (just like PHP)?
Is bulls_eye, bloodless and express too?
or if they are not, is there any Dart server side framework that able to do that (edit code, then test on the browser, without needing to restart the dart/server program)?
Currently this is not yet possible in Dart. If you change the code you have to restart the app.
I wouldn't expect this to work anytime soon.
A main feature to make this possible is to manipulate the code at runtime. This is planned but as far as I know not yet started.
EDIT
The above mentioned feature is necessary when you want code to be updated without loosing the current state of the application but that is usually not so important on the server because it should be (mostly) stateless anyway.
In Dart there's no need to restart the server app when only the client part changes.
If you really just want to restart the entire server when the code changes you should be able to do that by yourself. Create a console app that loads the server app into an isolate (spawnUri) and watch the source directory for file changes. In the case of a file change shutdown the server-app-isolate and create a new one.

ActiveX Control always working on my machine - unpredictable behavior on others?

I have a question about my ActiveX control not always working in IE on other machines.
Context: I'm working on an internal app for my company. It is designed to be a standalone web-page config tool for viewing a static customized version of our web app. The user may select the colors, images, and other settings they would like to see, and these will be present in the static mockup/preview version on their machine when they click a button.
Implementation: my javascript file creates a filesystem/activex object that essentially creates a temporary javascript file to which a list of values are written. Then when the user previews the configuration, the javascript file is located and values are loaded dynamically into the dom, etc etc. Naturally this functionality only works in Internet Explorer and is shady at best, but is my only way of implementing a purely zero configuration, client-side dynamic webapp.
Problem: When I test out my script, Internet Explorer prompts me twice about ActiveX controls and I say "yes" to them and the ActiveX functions work. I do this every single time I open my page. But sometimes when I send the file to another person so they can use it, they don't get the notifications so it doesn't work. However sometimes they do get notifications and it does work! I am using default security settings for IE so there should be no difference between my settings and theirs.
Could this be related to my user permissions vs theirs, or the fact that the files are read-only (because they are coming from source control and are also being made read-only when put on the shared drive.) or unknown dark Microsoft forces beyond human comprehension?
Thanks,
Josh
I believe you may want to create an HTA (HTML Application) instead of a web page. Writing HTA's gives you more privileges as far as ActiveX objects are concerned. Check out this page from Microsoft: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms536496(v=vs.85).aspx.
To answer your question about privileges, I believe that some of your coworkers' IE settings probably prevent web pages from using ActiveX objects. Your settings may be such that you are prompted whenever ActiveX object are about to be created.

Resources