-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Prepare protractor helper to work with async await #25
Prepare protractor helper to work with async await #25
Conversation
@PauloGoncalvesBH, o BCH falhou, mas revise mesmo assim, please. |
Also, work around temporarily on function `tapWhenTappable`.
`browser.ignoreSynchronization` will be soon deprecated.
This intends to fix an issue introduced after implementing the usage of async/await, where units of code turned not being short enough anymore based on BetterCodeHub analysis.
async/await is a feature of ES7 that is only available from v8+ versions of NodeJS.
68787e2
to
ecd7063
Compare
All the commits done so far are ok. |
Suggestion: Add the keyword testing on package.json file. |
This is necessary to be one of the projects suggested in the topic 'testing' on npmjs.com.
@PauloGoncalvesBH, I've just pushed the code with your suggestion. Back to you. |
The commit daa8e68 is ok also. |
Let's make this adjustment in another PR. |
protractor-helper is still not compatible with protractor v6 Waiting on #25
protractor-helper is still not compatible with protractor v6 Waiting on #25
protractor-helper is still not compatible with protractor v6 Waiting on #25
I'm closing this PR without merging since it's super outdated and it has too many conflicts. I may use some of its implementations in the new one when addressing issue #21 again. |
Description
This PR updates the lib to be prepared to work with async/await, and it is related to issue #21.
Pull Request Checklist
Other comments
index.js
into smaller and less coupled modules #22) may need to be implemented together in this PR, to fix the Better Code Hub analysis, or we could simply do this in another PR, which I'm in favor of.