chore: lint cypress

[thisislawatts]

• chore: introduce linting to Cypress directory
• chore: appease linting rules
• chore: appease linting rules
• chore: enforce no-assigning-return-values

PR Checklist

• - Commit messages are descriptive, it will be used in our Release Notes

PR Type

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Developer experience (improves developer workflows for contributing to the project)

Description

Following on from #2076, I wondered how our Cypress tests were looking.

This PR aims to:

• Bring Cypress tests in line with repo wide linting requirements
• Surface Cypress specific anti-patterns

I am not certain about the work involved with removing the cypress rule violations. This may or may not need to be split across multiple PRs, as I have already found a few focused tests 😬

[cypress]

1 flaky tests on run #2950 ↗︎

0

70

3

0

1

Details:

Merge branch 'master' into chore/lint-cypress
Project: onearmy-community-platform	Commit: a0e10112d6
Status: Passed	Duration: 03:17 💡
Started: Feb 19, 2023 5:49 PM	Ended: Feb 19, 2023 5:52 PM

  src/integration/map.spec.ts • 1 flaky test • ci-chrome

View Output Video

Test
map > [By User] > should show the user a message stating their pin is rejected		Screenshot

_{This comment has been generated by cypress-bot as a result of this project's GitHub integration settings.}

[thisislawatts]

@chrismclarke I have uncovered some Cypress tests that were being skipped. Do you have any context on whether they should/shouldn't pass.
https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/ONEARMY/community-platform/3722/workflows/9752aaff-81bc-4c04-b466-68db28df04d1/jobs/24167

[chrismclarke]

Thanks @thisislawatts - sorry for the slow response, I can't recall anything off-hand for why specific tests were skipped, looking at my local branch I can see two cases of it.skip, both of which have you mentioned as last editor

Anything else needed from me on this PR? taking a quick look through the code changes all looks good to me.

I can see some minor lint and conflict issues, let me know if you want me to help get these resolved or if you have any plans to revisit. Otherwise i'd say this should be pretty much good to go

[thisislawatts]

Thanks @chrismclarke, I will push those skipped tests to another PR. It would be more valuable to get these automated checks in to prevent any more .skip or .only slipping past human reviewers :)

[chrismclarke]

Thanks @thisislawatts , sounds good to me. Really nice to have these added checks in for sure

[onearmy-bot]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.38.1 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀