One research report for UI5 Journey Recorder. Reports come with Plus, Pro and Max.
Takeaway & demandCited takeaway and search volumes
Traffic & domainPopularity rank, visits and authority
Money & pricingPlans and prices from the maker’s site
ReviewsComplaints and praise, quoted
Competitors & ranksRank against the closest listings
Build opportunityWhat to build and how to position it
Every number shows its source and date
Ready in a minute or two
Report and PDF yours for 30 days
Reviews
Micul Atelier de Testare19 months ago
0 stars from my side , this extension is worthless , let me brake it down why :
1. Typos and Syntax Errors:
descripe: This is a clear typo; it should be describe.
const = require("./pages/Page");: This line is syntactically incorrect and useless. It attempts to assign the result of require to an unnamed constant, which is not valid JavaScript.
.iPressTheButton();: The last action has a leading dot, but no object reference. This will cause a runtime error.
2. Generic and Unhelpful Method Names:
Methods like iPressTheIcon(), iPressTheStandardListItem(), and iShouldSeeTheRow() are too generic. They don't provide any context about which icon, list item, or row is being interacted with. This makes the tests difficult to understand and maintain.
iType_asdfgh_IntoTheInput() and iType_q1_IntoTheInput(): hardcoding the input value into the function name, is bad practice.
3. Lack of Specific Selectors:
The code relies on these generic methods, which strongly suggests that the tool is not capturing specific UI5 selectors (IDs, view names, control types). Without specific selectors, the tests are highly likely to break if the UI changes even slightly.
4. Missing Implementation in Page Objects:
The tool generates the structure of the page objects (e.g., DynamicTilePage, MasterPage, NewFleetOpsPage), but it doesn't populate them with the actual implementation. You'll need to manually add the WebDriverIO commands and UI5 selectors to these page objects.
5. Repetitive Assertions:
The repeated NewFleetOps.iShouldSeeTheRow() assertions are not very informative. It would be better to have assertions that verify specific data within the rows.
6. Possible missing awaits:
While not immediately obvious, without seeing the page object code, it is very possible that there are missing awaits inside of the page object methods.
Conclusion:
The generated code provides a basic outline, but it's far from being a working test. You'll need to:
Correct the typos and syntax errors.
Implement the page object methods with specific UI5 selectors and WebDriverIO commands.
Add more specific and informative assertions.
Refactor the action methods to be more readable and reusable.
So you are better off writing the test your self , because the code generated by this tool is not only useless , but it sets you on multiple wrong tracks , so you will have to side track and backtrack your actions to make it usable
Nicolai Schönteich4 years ago
Thanks a lot for this! Helps us generate wdi5 test code in no time!
Product image 1 of 5
