Field State Validation - FAILURE: Expected field 'number' to be read only but it was not read only. See screenshot

[mikecole]

While impersonating a member of the Help Desk, the 'number' field which is read only is being perceived by automated testing to not be read only.

FAILURE: Expected field 'number' to be read only but it was not read only. See screenshot
FAILURE: Expected field 'opened_at' to be read only but it was not read only. See screenshot
FAILURE: Expected field 'opened_by' to be read only but it was not read only. See screenshot
FAILURE: Expected field 'number' to be visible but it was not visible. See screenshot
FAILURE: Expected field 'opened_by' to be visible but it was not visible. See screenshot

[chrissquires1]

Just curious...

1) On your Field State Validation step, are you looking at the correct table for the form in question?

2) Do you have the correct form open before the Field State Validation?

So your steps would look something like:

Impersonate: Help Desk member

Open Existing Form (from previous step) or Open New Form

Field State Validation

Lastly, are the states being validated acted upon by UI Policy, based on the user's role?   If so, then this may be a timing issue where the field states have not yet changed before the actual validation has occurred.   You might try bumping up the timeout value on your step to see if that resolves it or you can try putting another form step in between Open Form and State Validation like UI Action Visibility.

[PierreDumoulin]

Hey everyone, I am getting started with ATF and have run into this as well. Chris, to field your questions, yes the validation is associated to the right table and I only have the one form on my test. I'd appreciate collaborating on this to get it resolved, as this seems pretty basic (the read-only fields have not been modified and they are typically handled by the system directly, which would make them read only) and is unfortunately tempering my enthusiasm for an otherwise very impressive feature. Let me know what else I can do to move this along. thanks!

[PierreDumoulin]

Hey everyone, was just informed by SN that this is a known issue and that problem PRB689175 should resolve the issue. I've inquired as to a potential timeline.

[chrissquires1]

Thanks so much...I'd reported this as well but was not informed it was a known issue.