Ruby-Watit

Ruby
1

Hi,

I am using Watir to automate our regression test suite.

I have following question.

In watir I canot expand widgets.Could you please explan me the way to
expand the widgets using watir tool.

Please refer the screen shot for more information.

2

Uthpala Dissanayake wrote:

Hi,

I am using Watir to automate our regression test suite.

I have following question.

In watir I canot expand widgets.Could you please explan me the way to write scripts to expand the widgets using watir tool.

Please refer the screen shot for more information.

3

Hi,

In ruby 1.8.7 this does not work (syntax error):

class A

def test=(val, &block)
end

end

A.new.test = 10 do
end

I would really like to an associate a block in this way. Is there a way
round this?

Cheers,
James

4

Whoaa… never do it this way, and it seems doesn’t work in 1.9 too
and I agree with you, that it should works. Ruby’s bug ??

5

Thanks for checking this. I guess I should raise a bug report.

6

end

A.new.test = 10 do
end

I would really like to an associate a block in this way. Is there a way
round this?

I’m pretty sure this is not a bug. It’s been discussed once or twice
before on the ruby-talk list.

What are you trying to do with this syntax? Note the potential for
ambiguity:

A.new.test = [1,2,3].find do |i| i>1 end

This is currently parsed as

A.new.test = (
[1,2,3].find do |i| i>1 end
)

7

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 AM, James
French[email protected] wrote:

I would really like to an associate a block in this way. Is there a way round this?

I don’t think so. It isn’t parsed as a normal method call, its parsed
as a special construct with the = that is converted into a method call
in a way which doesn’t support picking up a block. I don’t really
think that using = this way would be a good idea even if you could.

8

2009/6/12 Christopher D. [email protected]:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:55 AM, James
French[email protected] wrote:

I would really like to an associate a block in this way. Is there a way round this?

I don’t think so. It isn’t parsed as a normal method call, its parsed
as a special construct with the = that is converted into a method call
in a way which doesn’t support picking up a block. I don’t really
think that using = this way would be a good idea even if you could.

+1

If I see this

foo.bar = x do
something
end

I assume that “foo.bar” becomes the result of evaluating “x do …
end”. And the Ruby interpreter does so, too. Joel is absolutely
right about the ambiguity. Note also that this it is not possible to
somehow make a block work with a “regular” assignment (i.e. a direct
variable assignment):

bar = x do
something
end

Again, x will be called with the block and the result will be assigned
to bar. It would be a very bad idea IMHO to introduce inconsistencies
here. Please rather try to find a different solution. Note that you
can always do

def bar(&b)
@block = b
end

And then

foo.bar do
something
end

Kind regards

robert