ref(replay): Bump rrweb
to version 2.0.0-alpha.4
#6667
Closed
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR bumps
rrweb
to version2.0.0-alpha.4
and adjusts the package patch which slightly changed for the new version.I didn't find an official list of breaking changes or migrations for the new major. We've created an
rrweb
issue asking for a change log a while ago but so far only the relevant PRs were tagged. Out of those, nothing struck me as a breaking change for recording replays.Furthermore, I compared the available replay options between 1.1.3 and 2.0.0-alpha.4 and didn't find any removed options or changed default values. v2 just adds a few new options, which shouldn't impact us.
New rrweb options:
ignoreCSSAttributes
defaults to nullrecordCrossOriginIframes
defaults tofalse
, so no need to disable it explicitlyUltimately, I tested replays with my plain-js test app, using all our options for masking/ignoring/blocking which still seem to work as intended.
I'm fairly certain that the update doesn't break anything but I'm happy to test more if you (@billyvg @mydea) have more ideas.
Side note: I started doing this in an attempt to fix #6560 but it didn't seem to have impact for my testing. However, I think I'm still missing a good reproduction for the originally reported problem.
closes #6655