check() doesn't work about poltergeist HOT 10 CLOSED

check is not supposed to uncheck check boxes (see docs). For that there's an uncheck method. Does that solve your problem?

from poltergeist.

Oh sorry. I DID actually use the respective check/uncheck method. I should have clarified that part :)
In either way, if there is a click, the state should change. The matching tests pass in akephalos/selenium.

from poltergeist.

I can't reproduce the problem with the following test case:

    describe 'check/uncheck' do
      it 'should work' do
        @session.visit('/form')
        checkbox = @session.find(:css, '#form_pets_cat')
        checkbox.checked?.should == false
        @session.check('form_pets_cat')
        checkbox.checked?.should == true
        @session.check('form_pets_cat')
        checkbox.checked?.should == true
        @session.uncheck('form_pets_cat')
        checkbox.checked?.should == false
        @session.uncheck('form_pets_cat')
        checkbox.checked?.should == false
      end
    end

Plus, check/uncheck is covered by the Capybara integration tests too.

Have you tried taking screenshots to see if anything obvious sticks out? If you could create a reproducible test case that would help a lot.

Thanks

from poltergeist.

They LOOK disabled: screenshot
The weird thing is, that if I go to that page manually, they aren't. This might be ?CSS related? though

edit: html dump

from poltergeist.

You could try using evaluate_javascript to look at the disabled attribute of one of the checkboxes?

from poltergeist.

thanks for the hint, I'll try that

from poltergeist.

ok, they are NOT disabled.
It is kind of a strange behavior:

doesn't work:

page.check(feature_id_hash[feature])

works:

page.evaluate_script("document.getElementById('#{feature_id_hash[feature]}').checked=true")

from poltergeist.

Please could you confirm if this is still a problem (against master)? I think it might be the same as #8, which is now fixed.

from poltergeist.

I'm going to close this. Please reopen if it still exists, but by the looks of it it's the same bug as #8. Thanks.

from poltergeist.

I would assume so, I'll come nagging again if it's still broken :)

from poltergeist.