You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For my specific use-case, of running GUI automation tests using Sikuli on a datacenter with multiple users, the App class fails to open my application as there are multiple other processes with the same name on the system, so it bypasses the _osutil.open line.
From having a closer look at the code, I can see the following behavior when trying to call App.open() with a full path to an executable on Windows. First, it checks if the path pointing to a valid location, then it extracts the application executable name from the path and runs a search on all the open processes to see if a process with that name already exists, and if so it uses that process instead of creating a new one.
I believe that the user should have a choice of whether he/she wishes to opt in for this functionality, and it should not be default, as it breaks the use-case described above, where other processes with the same name are running, but the user wishes to spawn a new one regardless.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For my specific use-case, of running GUI automation tests using Sikuli on a datacenter with multiple users, the App class fails to open my application as there are multiple other processes with the same name on the system, so it bypasses the _osutil.open line.
From having a closer look at the code, I can see the following behavior when trying to call App.open() with a full path to an executable on Windows. First, it checks if the path pointing to a valid location, then it extracts the application executable name from the path and runs a search on all the open processes to see if a process with that name already exists, and if so it uses that process instead of creating a new one.
I believe that the user should have a choice of whether he/she wishes to opt in for this functionality, and it should not be default, as it breaks the use-case described above, where other processes with the same name are running, but the user wishes to spawn a new one regardless.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: