For E2E scaffolded blank specs, scaffold a spec that passes instead of fails.

[sync-by-unito]

Summary

When creating a new blank e2e test, should we maybe use a cy.log instead of a cy.visit? If they don't have a site setup prior to generating the test we just create a new failing test.

Screen.Recording.2022-05-19.at.2.04.54.PM.mov

https://cypressio.slack.com/archives/C02MYBT9Y5S/p1652987237554559

Acceptance Criteria

• Maybe the content of the test should be

cy.log('Write Cypress tests')
// cy.visit('website-url-here')

// or, expect(true).to.be.true

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task by Unito
┆Attachments: Screen Recording 2022-05-19 at 2.04.54 PM.mov
┆author: Matt Henkes
┆epic: UI/UX Improvements
┆friendlyId: UNIFY-1796
┆priority: Medium
┆sprint: Fast Follows 1
┆taskType: Task

[sync-by-unito]

➤ Blue Frauenglass commented:

I'm not completely sure I agree. Scaffolding a spec which shows "how cypress is usually used" seems more valuable to me than getting something immediately green.

The existing default spec has always been nice when I set up new projects - it gives me an immediate next step, “get cy.visit working” (by some combination changing the URL, starting my server, or setting a baseUrl).

[sync-by-unito]

➤ Brian Mann commented:

We probably should be visiting the kitchensink like we do when we scaffold all the example specs for you. That or no cy commands at all…

[cypress-bot]

The code for this is done in cypress-io/cypress#22070, but has yet to be released.
We'll update this issue and reference the changelog when it's released.

[cypress-bot]

Released in 10.0.3.

This comment thread has been locked. If you are still experiencing this issue after upgrading to
Cypress v10.0.3, please open a new issue.