Ranorex Forum

Hi.

I've found the "Wait For Not Exists" action very powerful but it seems to be lacking in one area. It allows me to have it continue on fail (which is good) but I would like the option to tell how to report the fail. Right now when wait for not exists fails it is always a warning in the report log. I would like the option to customize the report level (like for the validate action) so I can tell it how to report the failure; warning, error, etc.

Thanks.

Todd

Hello,

Thank you for your feature request.
I added it to our internal bug-tracking system in order to discuss a future implementation.

Would it be an option for you to use Validate.NotExists in the meantime?

Regards,
Markus (T)

Hi Markus,

Yes, I am using Validate.NotExists now. I'd prefer to use Wait For Not Exist since it seems to be quicker for "passing" tests. I'm using Validate.NotExists to check for errors on a page (when it doesn't exist it passes) and Validate.NotExists waits for the search timeout, which I've reduced as much as I can, for all passing pages (which is 99% of the time). Wait For Not Exist would just have the wait on failing pages up to the Wait For Not Exist timeout value.

Thanks.

Todd

Hello,

Have you checked the 'Effective Timeout' of your repository item used in your Validate.NotExists() action?
The 'Search Timeout' could be very low (e.g. 1000ms) although the 'Effective Timeout' could be much higher (e.g. 31s). More information about timeouts can be found at Repository Item Properties in our User Guide.

Regards,
Markus (T)

I have and my effective timeout is at 3s (as low as I could get and still get my expected results). Since this check repeats so often it would be quicker if the timeout only happened on failure (like WaitForNotExist) instead of the timeout happening on pass (like using Validate.NotExists).

Hello Todd,

That's correct, the action Validate.NotExists waits until the search timeout is over and that means that your test will take more time.
Markus added a feature request and we will discuss the issue internally in more detail.
Thank you for your suggestion.

Regards,
Bernhard