Tree model class doesn't support GwtWidget.find(...)

[PeterWippermann]

I noticed that no Finder had been implemented for org.senchalabs.gwt.gwtdriver.gxt.models.Tree. With no specific with-methods, I decided to provide the WebElement:

String componentTabLabel = "Component";
TabPanel leftTabPanel = GwtWidget.find(TabPanel.class, driver).withItem(componentTabLabel).done();
WebElement treeElement = leftTabPanel.getElement().findElement(By.id(ComponentTree.ID_TREE));
Tree componentTree = leftTabPanel.find(Tree.class).withElement(treeElement).done();

. However, this fails early since the generic find-method throws a ClassCastException from GwtWidget.class; line 155: Class<T> finderType = (Class<T>) t.getActualTypeArguments()[0];

This in turn is caused by the abscence of a specific finder. Compare public class Tree extends GwtWidget<GwtWidgetFinder<Tree>> to public class Button extends GwtWidget<ButtonFinder>

I understand to a certain degree that you didn't want to implement the model to full extend, but I think at least the basic methods like find() should work.

[niloc132]

Good catch. Do consider as a workaround (and also the difference in size/readability/intent) changing

Tree componentTree = leftTabPanel.find(Tree.class).withElement(treeElement).done();

to

Tree componentTree = new Tree(leftTabPanel.getDriver(), treeElement);

or just

Tree componentTree = new Tree(driver, treeElement);

If you already have the root element, calling leftTabPanel.find doesn't make a ton of sense, you aren't going to use that parent except to share its driver anyway.

Additionally, be very careful about using IDs in your gwt code - the entire purpose of this tool is to avoid the development/testing hazards that can come from doing that. If the tree is the primary content of that tab, find the tree as the first Tree inside the tab content.

[PeterWippermann]

Hi @niloc132 , thanks for your advise. But does your answer mean that you don't want to get Tree.find() fixed? :-/

[niloc132]

This will be fixed, it is definitely a bug. I've heard reports of that generics manipulation failing in other ways, but this is the first time I've seen a reproducible case.

[PeterWippermann]

:+1: :smiley: