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

Decaff driver part 0 #7004

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Apr 16, 2020
Merged

Conversation

sainthkh
Copy link
Contributor

@sainthkh sainthkh commented Apr 14, 2020

Preparation for breaking down #5762. This time, I'll decaff the entire driver package. As it's a big project, I'll break it down to a few steps to make it easier to review.

NEVER SQUASH THIS PR

@cypress-bot
Copy link
Contributor

cypress-bot bot commented Apr 14, 2020

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).

Functionality

  • 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.

Maintainability

  • 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).

Quality

  • 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.

Internal

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

Copy link
Member

@jennifer-shehane jennifer-shehane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I could probably nitpick a few tiny things, but overall this is great. Functionally looks solid. Can't wait to get this in. Thanks @sainthkh 💯

Comment on lines +35 to +37
return type === 'check'
? $el.prop('checked')
: !$el.prop('checked')
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The implementation ends up being the same (seeing all the calls) in this case although not a one to one comparison of previous code.

@jennifer-shehane jennifer-shehane merged commit 28b9a5d into cypress-io:develop Apr 16, 2020
@cypress-bot
Copy link
Contributor

cypress-bot bot commented Apr 20, 2020

Released in 4.4.1.

This comment thread has been locked. If you are still experiencing this issue after upgrading to
Cypress v4.4.1, please open a new issue.

@cypress-bot cypress-bot bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 20, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants