Add shadow dom experimental flag #2858
Conversation
|
Going to wait on merging/approving until we update the flag name |
| @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Option | Default | Description | |||
| `experimentalGetCookiesSameSite` | `false` | If `true`, Cypress will add `sameSite` values to the objects yielded from {% url "`cy.setCookie()`" setcookie %}, {% url "`cy.getCookie()`" getcookie %}, and {% url "`cy.getCookies()`" getcookies %}. This will become the default behavior in Cypress 5.0. | |||
| `experimentalComponentTesting` | `false` | When set to `true`, Cypress allows you to execute component tests using framework-specific adaptors. By default `cypress/component` is the path for component tests. You can change this setting by setting the `componentFolder` configuration option. For more details see the {% url "cypress-react-unit-test" https://github.com/bahmutov/cypress-react-unit-test %} and {% url "cypress-vue-unit-test" https://github.com/bahmutov/cypress-vue-unit-test %} repos. | |||
| `experimentalSourceRewriting` | `false` | Enables AST-based JS/HTML rewriting. This may fix issues caused by the existing regex-based JS/HTML replacement algorithm. See {% issue 5273 %} for details. | |||
| `experimentalShadowDomSupport` | `false` | Enables shadow DOM support. Adds the `cy.shadow()` command and the `ignoreShadowBoundaries` option to some DOM commands. | |||
| `experimentalShadowDomSupport` | `false` | Enables shadow DOM support. Adds the `cy.shadow()` command and the `includeShadowDom` option to some DOM commands. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we make experimentalShadowDomSupport and experimentalComponentTesting clickable hash based anchor links that scroll you down to their associated detailed docs?
I think you use urlHash helper to achieve this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would also consider reducing down this table to not include so many implementation details - and instead just write a brief <10 words description, and then have a dedicated section for each one of these so the template is consistent.
As it stands, this table is virtually unscannable, and it's easy to miss what the actual available experiments are.
Even if the sections for each experiment are brief, at the very least we could list out the issues, add screenshots, or explain why you would want to enable this experimental option.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to block the release on this or can we do this afterwards?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with everything you're saying :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
experimental docs should never be blocking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, I'm going to merge this and open a new PR with the changes suggested.
experimentalShadowDomSupportdescription to experiments page.