feat: adding a new matcher for shadow DOM toMatch #463
Conversation
|
Since I'm unsure whether it's best to create a separate matcher for this or to augment |
|
It looks like it would be better to add an option to Also make sure to update |
|
fair point @UziTech, let me update the PR. |
k-j-kim
force-pushed
the
tomatch-shadowdom
branch
from
26b96e4 to
936f327
Compare
| const textContent = traverseShadowRoots | ||
| ? getShadowTextContent(handle) | ||
| : handle.textContent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
get textContent from either getShadowTextContent or node's textContent based on traverseShadowRoots option.
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| }) | ||
| describe.each(['Page', 'Frame', 'ShadowPage', 'ShadowFrame'])( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same test cases, just adding page types.
| const options = ['ShadowPage', 'ShadowFrame'].includes(pageType) | ||
| ? { traverseShadowRoots: true } | ||
| : {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
run toMatch with option if in shadow DOM page type
| } | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| describe('ElementHandle', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
moved ElementHandle into the page type block. Was there a reason it was not tested for frames?
k-j-kim
force-pushed
the
tomatch-shadowdom
branch
from
936f327 to
396a7bc
Compare
|
tyvm for the review @UziTech! 🙏 is there anything else I need to do to get the PR ready for merge? |
|
Nope. I will release this tonight. Thanks! |
|
Sorry for the delay. Finally got around to releasing 6.1.0 with this change 🎉 |
|
thanks for all your help on this @UziTech!! 🙏 |
Summary
text-content-shadow-dom, adding a newtoMatch-like matcher that traverses shadow DOMshadowrootmust be set toopento allow traversalTest plan
toMatchInShadow.test.jsthat executes the same test cases astoMatch