feat: react support again#376
Closed
KazuCocoa wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Member
Author
|
I think appium/appium#20004 (comment) is more simpler than adding this kind of modification in atoms every time. Closing this PR. |
Member
|
Yes, agree. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Should we need to keep
React input operationworkaround we had but removed in #268 ...?So, with this change, as same as we had before,
e.send_keysto a react element can type all of given chars with one command, although usually it requires sending keys one by one.So, with this change (and before #268),
e.send_leys '12345'can type12345with one send_keys.Without this (so current master), it requires
e.send_keys '1';e.send_keys '2';e.send_keys '3';...one by one to type properly.Actually in user perspective, this pr may help (and can keep backward compatibility for before #268), but we need to keep this diff as Appium's workaround.
@jlipps any thoughts about this atom? (as #268 's change perspective)