[attribute-behavior] Snapshot test #10587
Conversation
acdlite
force-pushed
the
attributebehaviorsnapshot
branch
from
82112f5
to
de3eb2e
Compare
|
If we're not ready to check in the actual snapshot file yet, because we aren't happy with the output, I would prefer to check in the rest of the changes in this PR (like extracting the config into a separate module) so I don't have to keep rebasing whenever we change the table. |
|
Ah, this is super cool. I was wondering if we'd ever do headless testing of this stuff. |
|
@nhunzaker Do you want to help out reviewing this PR? |
Same data as the attribute table, but in the form of a snapshot. Uses puppeteer to run headless Chromium.
acdlite
force-pushed
the
attributebehaviorsnapshot
branch
from
de3eb2e
to
4744ca9
Compare
|
Rebased |
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!didStartTest && str.includes('http://localhost:9292/')) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's probably a better way to do this but idk what it is :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I really want is a callback that says "Hey CRA is serving your app now, go ahead and run your tests."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd vote do a production build and run at as a static for serve, if possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- that way you have direct control of setup and teardown without any ipc
|
How does this work? Does it build the bundles first? |
|
Nah, just runs CRA dev server. But you're right, would probably be easier to just build the bundle and then serve a static file. I think maybe puppeteer lets you give it a file. |
|
The thing that bothers me is that this doesn't solve the warning deduplication problem (afaik). I always edit the bundle to remove |
|
I see. Could we add a secret feature flag? |
|
¯\(ツ)/¯ |
|
Superseded by #10595. |
Same data as the attribute table, but in the form of a snapshot. Uses puppeteer to run headless Chromium.