TanyaYatskovska wrote:
Hi William,
Thanks for bringing up this question. Our R&D team are currently collecting feedback about possible issues/misunderstanding related to Name Mapping. That would be great to hear what problematic situations you face and how you usually resolve them. Please share your thoughts.
As for the changes in hierarchy, did you try using Name Mapping’s Extended Find feature?
When there was a hierarchy removed from the mapping we opened the name mapping file in notepad++ and manually (carefully) removed the level. We then opened all the keyword tests at once in Notepad++ and did a find/replace across all keyword test and removed level. Otherwise the tests would no longer be able to find the objects (I seems to me that moving the objects in the object mapping in TC would change the name mapping but it did not and we had to take matters into our own hands). However, there were still many places we had to re-map in TC (I suspect the developer made additional changes which we weren't informed). My suspicion is that had we not name mapped this objects there would have been one less step and less manual re-mapping in TC.
We have extended mapping turned on and see the warnings in the log whenever a test fails.
With regard to better describing / explaining name mappings, my current question are; If we turn off auto 'map names automatically' will this stop the automatic creation of named mapping and if we don't manually create a name mapping will the keyword tests refer to the alias? Are there benefits / drawback to this? We were initially drawn to name mapping as a "friendly name" but it seems there are more drawbacks than benefits because TC doesn't appear to sync object mapping changes with the name mapping.
It's quite possible some of my assumptions are incorrect but I write this from my understanding of the product.