Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simply state that the element is not visible. #5982

merged 1 commit into from Dec 18, 2019


Copy link

@jennifer-shehane jennifer-shehane commented Dec 17, 2019

  • Partially addresses #5974

User facing changelog

We updated the fallback error message for visibility checks to be less confusing.

Additional details

  • This error message is pretty awful. It should just state that the element is not visible if it can't find the reason.

How has the user experience changed?


Test would fail visibility assertion and print:

Cypress could not determine why this element '<button>' is not visible.


Test will fail visibility assertion and print:

This element '<button>' is not visible.

PR Tasks

  • Have tests been added/updated?
  • [NA] Has the original issue been tagged with a release in ZenHub? DOESN'T REALLY CLOSE ISSUE
  • [NA] Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?
  • [NA] Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?
  • [NA] Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?

Copy link

@cypress-bot cypress-bot bot commented Dec 17, 2019

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

  • Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

  • The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
  • The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).


  • The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
  • Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
  • The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.


  • The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
  • Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
  • The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
  • New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
  • There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).


  • The change does not reimplement code.
  • There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
  • There is no redundant or duplicate code.
  • There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
  • Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.


  • The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

@jennifer-shehane jennifer-shehane requested a review from Dec 17, 2019
Copy link

@cypress cypress bot commented Dec 17, 2019

Test summary

3584 0 47 0

Run details

Project cypress
Status Passed
Commit 3f310e1
Started Dec 17, 2019 9:11 AM
Ended Dec 17, 2019 9:16 AM
Duration 04:45 💡
OS Linux Debian - 9.11
Browser Multiple

View run in Cypress Dashboard ➡️

This comment has been generated by cypress-bot as a result of this project's GitHub integration settings. You can manage this integration in this project's settings in the Cypress Dashboard

@jennifer-shehane jennifer-shehane merged commit 6552d7e into develop Dec 18, 2019
38 checks passed
Copy link

@cypress-bot cypress-bot bot commented Dec 26, 2019

Released in 3.8.1.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants