No proper retry when chaining invoke() and its().

[tzolnai]

Current behavior:

When I chaining an invoke() and its() call, the behavior is different from what I expect here. It seems to me that the method specified in the invoke's parameter is not called anymore, just once and only its() is doing the retry.

With pseudo-code:

result = item.<invoke_method>()
waitUntil(result.<its_attribute> meets the assumption)
{}

Desired behavior:

My expectation is that if I use invoke() and its() in the same chain, then the framework should retry the whole chain. Invoke the method again and again, and check it's attribute again and again.

With pseudo-code:

result = item.<invoke_method>()
waitUntil(result.<its_attribute> meets the assumption)
{ result = item.<invoke_method>() }

Test code to reproduce

I modified the example code from the invoke() method documentation page:
https://docs.cypress.io/api/commands/invoke.html#Retries

it('Invoke+its test', function() {
	let message = 'hello';
	const english = {
		greeting () {
			return {'message' : message};
		}
	};

	setTimeout(() => {
		message = 'bye';
	}, 2000);
		
	// With this wait() the test passes
	// cy.wait(2100);

	cy.wrap(english)
		.invoke('greeting')
		.its('message')
		.should('be.equal', 'bye');
});

This test code fails for me with 'expected 'hello' to equal 'bye'' message. However if I add a cy.wait() in the test code (see the commented out line), then the test passes, which means the assumption is met after some time. I think the test should pass without that wait() too.

Versions

Cypress 4.3.0
OpenSUSE 15.1

[threehams]

This is covered by the Cypress retryability docs, though this page and the invoke/its examples in the issues answers + docs are really at odds with each other.

Another way to do what you're looking for while preserving retryability:

cy.wrap(english).should(obj => expect(obj.greeting().message).toEqual("bye"));

At my company, we're in the middle of removing find, its, and invoke from usage because they're such a big source of flakiness.

[tzolnai]

@threehams: Thanks for the info and suggestion. I was not aware of this limitation. This should+callback solution is a good idea I'll use that. Thanks!

[tzolnai]

Since it's a known limitation, let's close this issue.