Option to skip iframe validation? about penpal HOT 6 CLOSED

Hey @markerikson, thanks for logging the issue. Will you try (or have you tried) setting modifyObstructiveCode to false in your cypress.json and see if that fixes your issue? We're using Penpal + Cypress on a project at work and I think this is what fixed it in our case.

from penpal.

Hmm. Here's what I was trying in the process of getting stuff to work earlier today:

• Original project setup:
  • [email protected] (or so - still using the version before you went back to publishing ES5-compat syntax)
  • Small cypress.json file, no compilation related options
  • Result: "Must be used in an iframe" error
• Researched, found Cypress's docs on modifyObstructiveCode
  • Added "modifyObstructiveCode": true to cypress.json
  • result: same "Must be used in an iframe" error
• Further research, found experimentalSourceRewriting
  • Added "experimentalSourceRewriting": "true" to cypress.json, in addition to "modifyObstructiveCode": true`
  • result: iframe loaded correctly, but Cypress pegged my CPU repeatedly and had very long delays in loading both the original page and the iframe (very understandable if it's parsing and rewriting megabytes of minified JS)
• Hand-edited the code in node_modules/penpal/ to comment out that validateWindowIsIframe() check and turned off both of those flags
  • result: iframe loaded, no long delays, Cypress test now passes in 15s or so (and most of that is actually exercising the portion of the app in the iframe)

So, I never technically tried "modifyObstructiveCode": false, but that's because it wasn't on in the first place and I assume that false is the default.

Any further thoughts?

from penpal.

from penpal.

Huh. Clearly I misread that docs page :) It does indeed say it defaults to true.

Yeah, I just tried uncommenting those lines in node_modules, set "modifyObstructiveCode": false in my cypress.json, and rebuilt the app, and the tests (still) work.

Might still be useful to have this as an option anyway, I guess, but doesn't appear to be necessary to solve this use case now.

Thanks for helping clear that up! Feel free to close this if you don't plan to make the change.

from penpal.

I'm going to update the readme with some of these details, then probably create a new ticket to just remove the check entirely in the next major version since it probably doesn't provide a lot of value anyway.

from penpal.

I've removed the check from Penpal. This change was released in v6. Thanks!

from penpal.