Topic
  • 6 replies
  • Latest Post - ‏2014-03-11T17:54:17Z by CostcoTravelLC
RFTworker
RFTworker
66 Posts

Pinned topic RFT with IE 10

‏2013-09-05T19:36:15Z |

Hi,

I recently updated my Internet explorer to 10 version. I have RFT 8.3.2. 

I have issue with click(). for example i have below click for one link which comes on first page for all our applications

link_overridelink().click();

RFT is throwing an exception and not clicking on this override link. When i tried to Update recognition Properties, by right clicking on the object, it identifies the object and highlights correctly.

But when i try to add the object or try to record on IE 10, it doesn't get identify as html.A as a link. instead it records like below, which is not consistent everytime:

table_htmlTable_0().click(atCell(atRow(atIndex(6)),

atColumn(atIndex(1))));

why is it different with IE 9 and IE 10? I had to switch back to IE 9 because of this problem.

is there a way that i can continue with IE 10 for RFT 8.3.2 version as it supports this version?

Thanks & appreciate any help on this

 

 

  • Y5QY_gerben_delange
    Y5QY_gerben_delange
    34 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2013-09-09T18:24:16Z  

    Hi,

    I would suggest comparing the HTML source code generated by the webserver for both browser versions. It is possible that the web application under test generates different content for different browsers. In that case you will need to adjust your scripts when upgrading to IE10.

     

     which is not consistent everytime:

    That's strange. Have you tried analyzing the object (link) using RFT's test object inspector (run -> test object inspector..)? It might be possible that the HTML looks something like the example below, and that the test object map tool has difficulties 'seeing the difference' between the cell and the link objects,because they're very close together on the screen. In that case you could try zooming in using your browser before inserting the test object. 

    // table row
    <tr>
    // table cell
    <td>
    // embedded link within table cell
    <a href='http://www.google.nl'>google</a>
    </td>
    </tr>

     

    good luck,

     

    g

  • cagin.uludamar
    cagin.uludamar
    66 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2013-09-18T11:22:05Z  

    Hi, did you re-enable your browser after you upgraded to v10?

  • RFTworker
    RFTworker
    66 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2013-09-18T12:48:49Z  

    Hi, did you re-enable your browser after you upgraded to v10?

    yes i did...

  • CostcoTravelLC
    CostcoTravelLC
    4 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2013-10-02T22:32:57Z  

    We're seeing a similar problem.  I've captured the html source from ie9 and ie10, and the only differences are in timestamps and cookie IDs.

    One thing that I did discover is that rft no longer captures url fragment identifiers, for example the url http://www.ibm.com/path/#fragment returns as http://www.ibm.com/path/  in both the html_browser's .url property and in the object recognition map, which causes several issues with page recognition when http://www.ibm.com/#1002 is a completely different page from  http://www.ibm.com/#1003   

  • 5KUK_Mike_Ramsey
    5KUK_Mike_Ramsey
    12 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2013-10-03T20:35:48Z  

    Have you tried using a dynamic find for the link using your browser object as the root?

  • CostcoTravelLC
    CostcoTravelLC
    4 Posts

    Re: RFT with IE 10

    ‏2014-03-11T17:54:17Z  

    We're seeing a similar problem.  I've captured the html source from ie9 and ie10, and the only differences are in timestamps and cookie IDs.

    One thing that I did discover is that rft no longer captures url fragment identifiers, for example the url http://www.ibm.com/path/#fragment returns as http://www.ibm.com/path/  in both the html_browser's .url property and in the object recognition map, which causes several issues with page recognition when http://www.ibm.com/#1002 is a completely different page from  http://www.ibm.com/#1003   

    Follow up,   Turning off IE 10's compatibility view for intranet sites fixed the issues we were seeing.