New bug in Ranorex.Imaging.Find(Bitmap, Bitmap, FindOptions)
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:17 am
Hi,
I've been updating from Ranorex 5.3 to 5.4.0.24580 now and there seems to be a new issue in the above mention Find method that was not there before (I've been downgrading to 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to confirm before posting this).
Using the releases 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 the above mentiond Find method returns a list of positions found as expected. Using the exactly same code after upgrading to 5.4 is not doing so and just returning ONE found position instead of returning multiple ones!
So I have to roll back to release 5.3.3 to get my solution working again!
To find out that this issue is related to Ranorex 5.4 and not to my latest changes in my code took a while!
Please fix this asap!
Additionally you've been changing the StartApplication method extending it by one parameter. That's fine but your solution is not backwards compatible so one HAS TO change his code. Why didn't you put a Default value for the new parameter so that your new interface is backwards compatible??? Anyway, not a big issue but no good interface design strategy if there are no real reasons to do so...
Kind regards,
Hardy
PS: Btw, I'm doing mobile testing on Android. Maybe that's important.
I've been updating from Ranorex 5.3 to 5.4.0.24580 now and there seems to be a new issue in the above mention Find method that was not there before (I've been downgrading to 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 to confirm before posting this).
Using the releases 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 the above mentiond Find method returns a list of positions found as expected. Using the exactly same code after upgrading to 5.4 is not doing so and just returning ONE found position instead of returning multiple ones!
So I have to roll back to release 5.3.3 to get my solution working again!
To find out that this issue is related to Ranorex 5.4 and not to my latest changes in my code took a while!
Please fix this asap!
Additionally you've been changing the StartApplication method extending it by one parameter. That's fine but your solution is not backwards compatible so one HAS TO change his code. Why didn't you put a Default value for the new parameter so that your new interface is backwards compatible??? Anyway, not a big issue but no good interface design strategy if there are no real reasons to do so...
Kind regards,
Hardy
PS: Btw, I'm doing mobile testing on Android. Maybe that's important.