[QA] PageObjects in mobile browser tests

[Jeff Hall]

I'm all for consolidation of PageObjects - it will definitely make the 
browser tests easier to maintain and extend over time!

- Jeff



On 1/14/14, 3:04 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
> I noticed this when writing tests for lead photo uploads where I had
> to create a LeadPhotoPage (to represent a page which has no lead
> photo)... [1]
>
> I agree we should only use page exists but use more generic names
>
> e.g. instead of Barack Obama article
>
> PageWithInfobox
>
> or PageWithMultipleSections etc..
>
> [1] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/105106
>
> ~ Be strong. Not bold. Bold has taken a new semantic meaning and it is
> time for change.
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Juliusz Gonera <jgonera at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if we need that many PageObjects in mobile browser tests. In
>> my opinion we should only have PageObjects for pages that actually exist,
>> such as:
>>
>> * HomePage (or MainPage)
>> * ArticlePage
>> * UploadsPage
>> * etc.
>>
>> There are a bunch of PageObjects that don't actually represent pages, but
>> kind of mirror features:
>>
>> * CreateArticlePage
>> * EditPage
>> * LanguagePage
>> * NotificationPage
>> * RandomPage
>>
>> I think all the elements from those page objects belong to the ArticlePage.
>> Furthermore, to avoid repeating things that are shared everywhere (e.g.
>> notifications icon), we could have a BasePage from which all the other page
>> objects could inherit. What do you think? I can work on refactoring this if
>> you agree.
>>
>> --
>> Juliusz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> QA mailing list
>> QA at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
> _______________________________________________
> QA mailing list
> QA at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa