add wait time for webdriver

[visagang]

No description provided.

[GGHansome]

Auto Review Result:

Code Review Report

1. Issue Description and Optimization Suggestions:

• Correctness and Robustness (Functionality)

  • Issue: In the UtilWebActionOnElementFn.cs file, the code change to set actionArgs.WaitTime = actionArgs.WaitTime > 0 ? actionArgs.WaitTime : 2; improves the robustness by ensuring that the WaitTime is a positive value. This change is defensive, handling invalid or unset wait times.
  • Suggestion: Consider adding a validation step or an exception handling mechanism wherever this property is utilized, to ensure that invalid states are caught early in the execution flow.

• Security and Potential Risks

  • Issue: There are no apparent security risks in the modifications. However, without context on where WaitTime might influence other operations, potential logic manipulations using excessive wait times should be considered.
  • Suggestion: Review the context where WaitTime is used to ensure it doesn't open doors to any potential denial-of-service issues if set excessively large. Implement upper bounds checks if necessary.

• Best Practices

  • Issue: The change introduces a JsonPropertyName attribute to map the WaitTime property, which is a good practice for consistent JSON serialization. However, ensure that JSON naming aligns with other serialized properties throughout the project for consistency.
  • Suggestion: Conduct a review of other model classes to maintain a consistent naming strategy across different JSON properties.

• Performance and Resource Utilization

  • Issue: The modification is straightforward and should have negligible impact on performance.
  • Suggestion: While this particular change does not introduce performance concerns, always profile methods which have varied execution times due to conditions or input modifications to prevent bottlenecks.

• Commit Information Clarity and Accuracy

  • Issue: The commit message is missing from the context provided.
  • Suggestion: Make sure to include clear, descriptive commit messages that reflect the purpose and scope of changes. This aids in version control and collaborative development.

2. Scores:

• Functionality, Correctness, and Robustness: 37/40
• Security and Potential Risks: 28/30
• Best Practices: 18/20
• Performance and Resource Efficiency: 5/5
• Commit Information Clarity: 3/5 (due to missing commit messages in the context)

3. Total Score:

Total: 91 points

This review suggests minor improvements in best practices and security. Overall, the changes are well-implemented but can benefit from consistent application across the codebase and thorough documentation in commit messages for better future maintenance.