Conversation
commit: |
✅ Testplane E2E run succeed
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9dcac0b76f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const transformed = await swc.transform(bundledScript, { | ||
| jsc: { | ||
| parser: { syntax: "ecmascript" }, | ||
| target: "es5", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When Testplane runs against IE8, calibrate.js can select this compatibility bundle, but SWC now only lowers it to ES5. The existing compatibility TypeScript configuration explicitly targets ES3, and the previous uglifyify setup disabled IE8-unsafe transformations; therefore ES5-only syntax emitted here can make screenshot commands fail before execution in the legacy browsers this bundle is intended to support. Retain an ES3/IE8-compatible transformation path or stop routing those browsers to this bundle.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22.12", | ||
| "npm": ">=10" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Android example's README instructs users to run nvm use, but its tracked .nvmrc still selects Node 20 while this new engine declaration requires Node 22.12 or newer. Following the documented setup consequently runs npm ci and the upgraded Testplane/Appium stack on an explicitly unsupported Node version; update .nvmrc alongside this requirement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
✅ Testplane browser-env run succeed
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 42b94165f0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Android occurrence is already noted, but the Storybook example independently has the same mismatch: its README explicitly tells users to run nvm use, while its tracked .nvmrc selects Node 20.10 and this new declaration requires Node 22 or newer. Following the documented installation steps therefore runs the upgraded Storybook/Testplane stack on an unsupported Node release; update this example's .nvmrc alongside the engine requirement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 941596fea9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Android and Storybook occurrences are already noted, but this example independently retains a tracked .nvmrc containing 20 while the new engine declaration requires Node 22 or newer. Running nvm use in this example therefore selects an explicitly unsupported runtime for the upgraded Testplane/Vite stack; update .nvmrc with the engine requirement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This example's tracked .nvmrc still selects Node 20, but the newly added engine declaration requires Node 22 or newer. Anyone using the repository's version selector in this directory will install and run the upgraded Testplane/Vite dependencies on an explicitly unsupported runtime; update .nvmrc alongside this requirement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=22" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The drag-and-drop example also retains a tracked .nvmrc containing 20 while this new engine declaration requires Node 22 or newer. Running nvm use in the example selects an unsupported runtime for the upgraded Testplane dependencies, so the version selector should be updated with the engine requirement.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
941596f to
c2562b6
Compare
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
💡 Codex Review Restore an HTML entry for the Vite build
When Lock the example to a Vite 6-compatible Testplane release
When this example is installed with ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6eead801b1
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "ip-address": "10.4.0", | ||
| "postcss": "8.5.26", | ||
| "minimatch@^9.0.0": "9.0.9", | ||
| "diff": "8.0.3", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the newly upgraded appium@3.6.0, the checked-in lockfile resolves @appium/docutils@2.5.2, which declares an exact dependency on diff@9.0.0; this unscoped override also applies to that subtree and instead requires 8.0.3. The resulting graph is internally inconsistent (npm ls --package-lock-only --all reports Appium's nested diff@9.0.0 as invalid), so dependency validation and reproducible installation of the Android example can fail. Scope this override to the older consumers that actually require it rather than downgrading Appium's dependency.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Upgrade Mocha to 12 and refresh vulnerable runtime dependencies. Adapt Mocha integration and restore the React example HTML entry. WebdriverIO security fixes remain deferred to a separate task.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9323d50bf3
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "brace-expansion@^1.0.0": "1.1.18", | ||
| "brace-expansion@^2.0.0": "2.1.4", | ||
| "brace-expansion@^5.0.0": "5.0.9", | ||
| "body-parser": "2.3.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the Android example, this unscoped override also replaces the dependency used by html-reporter@11.14.1 and its express@4.22.2: the checked-in lockfile shows those packages require body-parser@^1.18.2 and ~1.20.5, respectively, but resolve to the incompatible major 2.3.0. When the reporter starts its Express 4 server, it therefore runs against a body-parser version outside both consumers' declared contracts; scope the 2.x override to the Appium/Express 5 subtree or retain a patched 1.x version for the reporter.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Serialize WebdriverIO and Mocha preloads before processing worker tasks. Leave dialogs to the attached execution connection and wait for fixture authentication before saving browser state. Add regressions for preload ordering and dialog ownership.
Share explicit saveState teardown with afterEach so closed drivers receive no extra requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 05f905f334
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| bundle: true, | ||
| format: "iife", | ||
| minify: true, | ||
| platform: "browser", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When calibration selects the native bundle for an older browser that supports Node.prototype.getRootNode (for example Chrome 54–79), this esbuild invocation uses the default esnext target. With syntax minification enabled, esbuild can convert the ES3 output back to newer constructs such as ?? from expressions in screen-shooter/utils/scroll.ts; those browsers then fail to parse the injected screenshot script even though calibration explicitly routed them to this bundle. Set an explicit target matching the oldest browser accepted by needsCompatLib() or downlevel the native output as well.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Pin all WDIO preview dependencies to commit abee26880ff34d8d1666aae43de80d0bea4b0e89. Remove the obsolete undici override now that webdriver no longer depends on it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 0e9149ab7a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "@testplane/wdio-protocols": "https://pkg.pr.new/gemini-testing/webdriverio/@testplane/wdio-protocols@abee26880ff34d8d1666aae43de80d0bea4b0e89", | ||
| "@testplane/wdio-utils": "https://pkg.pr.new/gemini-testing/webdriverio/@testplane/wdio-utils@abee26880ff34d8d1666aae43de80d0bea4b0e89", | ||
| "@testplane/webdriverio": "https://pkg.pr.new/gemini-testing/webdriverio/@testplane/webdriverio@abee26880ff34d8d1666aae43de80d0bea4b0e89", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These runtime dependencies now point to pkg.pr.new preview artifacts instead of released registry versions. Because package.json is shipped to consumers, installing Testplane will require direct access to this external preview service and will fail in registry-only/private-mirror environments; it may also stop being reproducible if the preview artifacts are retired. Publish the required WebDriver changes under stable package versions and depend on those versions before releasing Testplane.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Avoid racing Puppeteer's ESM imports with the local browser installer's require calls. Cover preload ordering with a regression test and verify REPL on Node 22.18 and 24.13.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ad84ae1be6
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "@storybook/addon-docs", | ||
| "@storybook/addon-controls", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replacing @storybook/addon-essentials and @storybook/addon-interactions with only Docs and Controls removes the Actions and Interactions panels—the lockfile contains no @storybook/addon-actions replacement. Consequently, clicking the fn() callback advertised in Button.stories.ts no longer displays it in Actions, and the play function in Page.stories.ts loses its interaction tooling. Add the corresponding standalone addons when splitting up Essentials.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
No description provided.