-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix scroll behaviour + [wip] cypress tests for scroll behaviour #8359
Conversation
Argh, of course my cypress tests locally but not in CI :) |
Oh right duh. So Travis tests are going to fail, because I broke that with the CircleCI stuff. I'll fix that in a bit. It's weird, it looks like this PR somehow used the old CircleCI setup too 🙃 I'll take a closer look in a bit! This looks good though! |
Hmm, I'll merge master and see if that fixes circleCI test then --edit:
|
@pieh they passed!! Except it's a false positive, haha. Basically the way it works is that the current commit's files are what trigger (or don't trigger) the e2e tests. I think/thought that was a good idea, but now we won't really know whether they're passing for real or not unless a change to packages/ or integration-tests/ comes through in a commit. I can also change that behavior, but the thought was that for each commit we should run only what's needed. i.e. one commit might change packages -> run e2e tests. Next commit might be a README.md change -> don't run e2e tests, etc. |
Oh, so it doesn't check file changes in PR - just file changes in latest commit? |
@pieh yup. But like I said, I can change that, open to other suggestions :) |
That makes sense as a default. This is an edge case. Is there a way to manually trigger tests to run for real? |
@KyleAMathews I think I can set up the e2e test suite as an approval workflow. Those tests wouldn't make the same check as to whether certain files changed. It'd be a bit of duplication in the job structure, but worth doing? |
Maybe yeah. But since this is such an edge case (not many people are going to be PRing from older code), @pieh could just push a commit with a minor change to trigger tests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
"gatsby-plugin-manifest": "next", | ||
"gatsby-plugin-offline": "next", | ||
"gatsby-plugin-react-helmet": "next", | ||
"gatsby": "latest", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 We should probably switch all versions in integration-tests to use this pattern now, too.
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
getSnapshotBeforeUpdate(prevProps, prevState) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Such a nit, but you're not actually using prevState are you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, yeah, will fix - it should also trigger actual tests, so that's good
Hmmm that's why CircleCi failed @DSchau |
@KyleAMathews I can SSH into the box, but 99% sure that's the |
Ok interesting — yeah, this sounds like a circleci wrinkle |
…byjs#8359) fixes gatsbyjs#7454 (again) but adding tests to catch regressions in future problem was temp hack for reach/router was disabled by recent changes because of order of calls changes - it's restored now
fixes #7454 (again) but adding tests to catch regressions in future
problem was temp hack for reach/router was disabled by recent changes because of order of calls changes - it's restored now