wd_capabilities.au3 - support topic - early BETA version - Work In Progress

[mLipok]

Simply:
Do you mean that there should be only 2 underscore in a function name ?

_WD_Capabilities_APIDisplay() >>> _WD_CapabilitiesAPIDisplay()
 

[Danp2]

  On 9/19/2021 at 6:40 PM, mLipok said:

_WD_Capabilities_APIDisplay() >>> _WD_CapabilitiesAPIDisplay()

Expand  

Correct.

[mLipok]

I can take your approach to such nomenclature, but I would ask for some explanation of this approach.

[Danp2]

Your approach is fine. I just don't see the need for the additional underscore.

[mLipok]

Please also take a look for this function names:
_Date_Time_*()
_Net_Share_*()

After reflection I would better prospose:
_WDCapabilites_*()

instead:
_WD_Capabilites_*()
and instead:
_WD_Capabilites*()

This will fit:
_GUICtrl******_******()

or even:
_GUI******_******()

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by mLipok

[mLipok]

  On 9/19/2021 at 6:50 PM, Danp2 said:

Your approach is fine. I just don't see the need for the additional underscore.

Expand  

I just work so much with different code that it starts to be useful to me.

Or maybe I'm getting older, and my eyes need better separation in function and variable names. 

 

[Danp2]

There is no right or wrong. I think it comes down to personal preference. In the case of Webdriver UDF, I chose to use a prefix of _WD_ for the public functions without adding further underscores in the function names. <shrug>

[mLipok]

  On 9/19/2021 at 6:53 PM, mLipok said:

After reflection I would better prospose:
_WDCapabilites_*()

instead:
_WD_Capabilites_*()
and instead:
_WD_Capabilites*()

Expand  

And what about this ?
I think it will be distinguishable for everyone and will meet your requirements.

[Danp2]

@mLipok We have different coding styles. As the author, it's ultimately it's your decision. 🙂

[mLipok]

So, if no one else objects, I'll stick to the naming convention as follows:

  On 9/19/2021 at 7:47 PM, mLipok said:

_WDCapabilites_*()

Expand  

[water]

Just my 2 cents worth.

Somewhere in this thread you say that your WD Capabilities UDF should become part of the WebDriver UDF.
In this case, I would strongly recommend using the WebDriver UDF naming convention. The main benefit would be not to confuse users.

[mLipok]

So finally I clean up it a little, changed function names, add function headers, and here they are:
 

;~ Core functions:
_WD_CapabilitiesStartup()
_WD_CapabilitiesAdd()
_WD_CapabilitiesGet()

;~ Internal functions:
__WD_CapabilitiesInitialize()
__WD_CapabilitiesSwitch()
__WD_CapabilitiesNotation()

;~ Helper functions:
_WD_CapabilitiesDump()
_WD_CapabilitiesDisplay()

Check the  attached versionFetching info... .

Does it work for you?
Do you have any questions at this stage?
In your opinion, does this version deserve an official release?       (of course, after separating the examples).

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by mLipok

[mLipok]

wd_capabilities.au3 UDF was just changed/modified/refactored .... and commited/merged to https://github.com/Danp2/WebDriver

WARNING: Before you start using this UDF be sure you download the recent version from: https://github.com/Danp2/WebDriver

For support please take a look:

To the MOD team:
This topic/thread should be closed for new post. Please *click.

Edited December 1, 2021 by mLipok