feat: Allow mocking getComputedStyle #41
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
🦋 Changeset is good to goLatest commit: 3db06db We got this. Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
eps1lon
force-pushed
the
feat/getComputedStyle-mock
branch
from
723b3df
to
3610ff8
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
window.getComputedStyleis very expensive. To address performance concerns this PR allows mocking this function out.One could mock a fake implementation that returns always visible elements. The neat part is that is puts users with and without visual impairment on the same level. If your test makes assertions about elements that are visually hidden then even sighted users won't be able to perform it.
Another use case would be wrapping
window.getComputedStylewith a caching provider. It's unclear if we should allow providing a factory instead so that cache busting is easier (simply clear it before every call) or if this is responsibility in userland. Either way a factory option can be added later and I want to see usage first.