Visibility false to style='transform: scale(0,0)' or style='tra…

[sainthkh]

• Closes .should("be.visible") doesn't interpet elements with " style='transform: scale(0,0)' " correctly #723

User facing changelog

When an element is transformed by scale(0) or rotateY(90deg), it is not visible on the screen, but Cypress be.visible checks it's visible. Now, they're invisible.

Additional details

• Why was this change necessary?

It can be confusing to users when something invisible is visible in Cypress tests.

NOTE: In #723, it was only about the change caused by scale. But rotateX(90deg), rotateY(90deg) can cause similar things. So, they're fixed in this PR, too.

• What is affected by this change?

Not much. I could remove skip in one visibility test.

• Any implementation details to explain?

I had to parse matrix3d to check scaleZ(0). I linked the resources to transformation matrix in comments.

How has the user experience changed?

Now, we can check visibility change by transform.

PR Tasks

• Have tests been added/updated?
• Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?
• Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?
• Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?

[cypress-bot]

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

• Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
• Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

• The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
• The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

• The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
• Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
• The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

• The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
• Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
• The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
• New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
• There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

• The change does not reimplement code.
• There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
• There is no redundant or duplicate code.
• There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
• Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

• The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

[sainthkh]

@chrisbreiding I found that I missed adding getReasonIsHidden message test in #5591. Can I add it here or should I open a new PR?

[chrisbreiding]

@chrisbreiding I found that I missed adding getReasonIsHidden message test in #5591. Can I add it here or should I open a new PR?

Adding it here is fine.

[jennifer-shehane]

@sainthkh There's an edge case where this falsely evaluates an element as invisible when the parent has height: 0 that this does not cover. The example is given here: #5974 (comment)