[New architecture] Improve viewmodel behaviour #2569
Conversation
|
|
||
| // Check whether the dialog to create the public share has been properly closed | ||
| onView(withText(R.string.share_via_link_create_title)).check(doesNotExist()) | ||
| onView(withText(newPublicShare.name)).check(matches(isDisplayed())) | ||
|
|
||
| unregisterCreateShareFragmentAsIdlingResource(createShareFragmentIdlingResource) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why don't you include this statement in a "@after" method??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because the idling resource to unregister is created for each test and not shared between different ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"@before" and "@after" are functions are called before and after running one single test.
My idea would be to have your tests as following:
private lateinit var idlingResource: <Your type>
@Before
fun setUp() {
idlingResource = // call constructor
//register ...
}
@After
fun tearDown() {
// unregister
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I know what you mean, I tried that way but the tests were not working fine. Let me recheck it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@before
fun setUp() {
idlingResource = // call constructor
//register ...
}
I'm not using this because I register the idling resources in the middle of the tests, after executing other lines of code.
If you see the Expresso idling resources docs , there's two different ways to implement it (see below), I decided to use the second one and that's why I do not use @After method either.
| ) | ||
| IdlingPolicies.setIdlingResourceTimeout(1, TimeUnit.HOURS); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ups, I forgot to change this
| @@ -74,11 +78,11 @@ class OCShareViewModel( | |||
| expirationDateInMillis: Long, | |||
| permissions: Int, | |||
| publicUpload: Boolean | |||
| ): LiveData<Resource<List<OCShare>>> = shareRepository.updatePublicShareForFile( | |||
| ): LiveData<Resource<Void>> = shareRepository.updatePublicShareForFile( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do you use Void? Shouldn't it be better use Unit?
|
Since we are merging this branch into |
Implements #2565