Supports Cypress v10 or later #156
Conversation
|
v10 is old enough now that it probably makes sense to release this, assuming everything works |
|
CI is failing -- did the example tests pass for you locally? |
Yes. my local environment passed all test. |
lib/cypress-rails/init.rb
Outdated
| def call(dir = Dir.pwd) | ||
| config_path = File.join(dir, "cypress.json") | ||
| json = JSON.pretty_generate(determine_new_config(config_path)) | ||
| File.write(config_path, json) | ||
| config_path = File.join(dir, "cypress.config.js") | ||
| config_content = determine_new_config(config_path) | ||
| File.write(config_path, config_content) | ||
| puts "Cypress config (re)initialized in #{config_path}" | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| private | ||
|
|
||
| def determine_new_config(config_path) | ||
| if File.exist?(config_path) | ||
| merge_existing_with_defaults(config_path) | ||
| merge_existing_with_defaults(config_path) | ||
| else | ||
| DEFAULT_CONFIG | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def merge_existing_with_defaults(json_path) | ||
| JSON.parse(File.read(json_path)).merge(DEFAULT_CONFIG).sort.to_h | ||
| def merge_existing_with_defaults(config_path) | ||
| File.read(config_path) | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since merging JS files isn't feasible for this gem to try to do here, I think we should avoid writing to the file ssytem entirely if cypress.config.js is present (as opposed to reading the file only to overwrite, as is done here) and instead warn that the file already exists and so we will not be re-initializing it.
Make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your comments!
Warn for users when running cypress:init and Cypress config already exist.
ref: c376925
lib/cypress-rails/init.rb
Outdated
| DEFAULT_CONFIG = <<~CYPRESS_CONFIG | ||
| const { defineConfig } = require('cypress') | ||
|
|
||
| module.exports = defineConfig({ | ||
| // setupNodeEvents can be defined in either | ||
| // the e2e or component configuration | ||
| e2e: { | ||
| setupNodeEvents(on, config) { | ||
| on('before:browser:launch', (browser = {}, launchOptions) => { | ||
| /* ... */ | ||
| }) | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| screenshotsFolder: "tmp/cypress_screenshots", | ||
| videosFolder: "tmp/cypress_videos", | ||
| trashAssetsBeforeRuns: false | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| CYPRESS_CONFIG |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Recommend reformatting:
| DEFAULT_CONFIG = <<~CYPRESS_CONFIG | |
| const { defineConfig } = require('cypress') | |
| module.exports = defineConfig({ | |
| // setupNodeEvents can be defined in either | |
| // the e2e or component configuration | |
| e2e: { | |
| setupNodeEvents(on, config) { | |
| on('before:browser:launch', (browser = {}, launchOptions) => { | |
| /* ... */ | |
| }) | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| screenshotsFolder: "tmp/cypress_screenshots", | |
| videosFolder: "tmp/cypress_videos", | |
| trashAssetsBeforeRuns: false | |
| }) | |
| CYPRESS_CONFIG | |
| DEFAULT_CONFIG = <<~CYPRESS_CONFIG | |
| const { defineConfig } = require('cypress') | |
| module.exports = defineConfig({ | |
| // setupNodeEvents can be defined in either | |
| // the e2e or component configuration | |
| e2e: { | |
| setupNodeEvents(on, config) { | |
| on('before:browser:launch', (browser = {}, launchOptions) => { | |
| /* ... */ | |
| }) | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| screenshotsFolder: "tmp/cypress_screenshots", | |
| videosFolder: "tmp/cypress_videos", | |
| trashAssetsBeforeRuns: false | |
| }) | |
| CYPRESS_CONFIG |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These Cypress setting content formatted in this commit.
ref: ea4319e
|
Thank you! Released as 0.6.0 |
Hi.
I tried this gem when introducing E2E testing to my Mastodon server, but I had to edit some configuration files.
Currently, generated configuration file is pre-Cypress v10 (as far as I can tell from checking the example).
So, I wrote a patch to generate configuration files for Cypress v10 or later (including the latest v12.13.0).
I am not sure what policy should be used for the following part only. I would be happy to discuss this in this pull request.
cypress.json. Should we keep this behavior?