0

I've got screenshots of dialogs that require modifications. However, I've so many of them it is difficult to pin point in code the window in question. What can I do to "reverse engineer" the window (E.g.: A dialog with a dialog ID) back to source code?

Say I have a Stackoverflow app on my windows mobile. And I have a window titled "Ask Question". How do I identify this window back to source code?

One theoretical solution is to be able to get a unique parent window ID and prepend it to the window title. Once screenshot is taken, I get the ID and I know which dialog to modify.

Peter Arandorenko
  • 196
  • 1
  • 13

1 Answers1

0

I usually search the code for a unique attribute on the screen. For example, if I have a window containing text "Ask Question," then that's what I'll search code for. If the strings are localized, then I'll find the resource key and search for that. Works pretty well.

Jacob G
  • 3,645
  • 1
  • 20
  • 25
  • Yes, this is the straightforward manual approach. However, I'm looking for something to be automated, which would minimize window identification time. – Peter Arandorenko Jan 19 '12 at 21:16
  • Adding an arbitrary 'debug' style value to a window title could impact both usability and accessibility. – Jacob G Jan 19 '12 at 21:28
  • @PeterArandorenko Assume that, in your application, every window has a title and that title is always displayed. Now, let's assume that you have a window with a title "Login Form." Adding a debug value could change that to read, for example, "37-Login Form." A certain percentage of your users are going to wonder what that is and it may cause friction. Furthermore, if any of your users are using screen-readers, the reader may verbalize your unique id causing friction with those users as well. – Jacob G Jan 19 '12 at 22:30
  • The scenario that I was referring to never goes to production, so this change never reaches the end-user. It's purely in debug state until fixed and tested. – Peter Arandorenko Jan 19 '12 at 22:35
  • Ah, that makes sense. I apologize for the misunderstanding. – Jacob G Jan 20 '12 at 03:13