New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[AAE-3209]Fix e2e about attach file from local #5944
Conversation
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ describe('Process Task - Attach content file', () => { | |||
const processDefinitionName = browser.params.resources.ACTIVITI_CLOUD_APPS.SIMPLE_APP.processes.uploadSingleMultipleFiles; | |||
const uploadWidgetId = browser.params.resources.ACTIVITI_CLOUD_APPS.SIMPLE_APP.forms.uploadSingleMultiple.widgets.contentMultipleAttachFileId; | |||
const taskName = browser.params.resources.ACTIVITI_CLOUD_APPS.SIMPLE_APP.tasks.uploadSingleMultipleFiles; | |||
const folderName = StringUtil.generateRandomString(5); | |||
const folderName = '0' + StringUtil.generateRandomString(5); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why do we have this 0 at the beginning?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test uses hruser and there are a lot of folders created[by other people, other tests, i don't know]. attachFileFromContentNode() method is checking if the content[folder in this case] is displayed, without taking in consideration to click on 'Show more' in case is displayed. So if the folder is not displayed in the first ones, the test will fail. The easiest way for me was to fix it like this. Other options would be to use a new created user instead of hruser or modify the attachFileFromContentNode() method to take in consideration cases where multiple folders are created.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think is better to use a clean user
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems i can't use clean user without changing the process definition. The user task has hruser as assignee. We can raise separate ticket for this.
8726ca1
to
e3371cd
Compare
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check one with "x")
What is the current behaviour? (You can also link to an open issue here)
What is the new behaviour?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one with "x")
If this PR contains a breaking change, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications: ...
Other information: