Suggestion: Make some private Solo members protected

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?

Currently the Solo object contains private members such as searcher, presser 
which a subclass of Solo cannot access. My suggestion is to make these 
protected. This allows users of Robotium to, for example, subclass Solo to 
extend and specialize it to work with custom controls without having to 
recreate all of the searcher objects.

Keeping any customizations in a subclass makes integration a lot easier than if 
methods were just appended to Solo.

Please consider making the following "protected" in Solo.java:

    protected final Asserter asserter;
    protected final ViewFetcher viewFetcher;
    protected final Checker checker;
    protected final Clicker clicker;
    protected final Presser presser;
    protected final Searcher searcher;
    protected final ActivityUtils activityUtils;
    protected final DialogUtils dialogUtils;
    protected final TextEnterer textEnterer;
    protected final Scroller scroller;
    protected final RobotiumUtils robotiumUtils;
    protected final Sleeper sleeper;
    protected final Waiter waiter;
    protected final Setter setter;
    protected final Getter getter;

Original issue reported on code.google.com by gw111zz@gmail.com on 17 Apr 2012 at 11:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This will be changed in the next release.

Original comment by renasr...@gmail.com on 18 Apr 2012 at 11:27

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by renasr...@gmail.com on 18 Apr 2012 at 6:21

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This has been fixed in Robotium 3.3. 

Original comment by renasr...@gmail.com on 11 Jun 2012 at 4:07

• Changed state: Verified