Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #133 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.66% 91.66%
=======================================
Files 18 18
Lines 396 396
Branches 63 63
=======================================
Hits 363 363
Misses 29 29
Partials 4 4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
just-boris
force-pushed
the
flaky-test
branch
from
1502c4d to
535b25c
Compare
just-boris
force-pushed
the
flaky-test
branch
from
535b25c to
eb9a4f8
Compare
| await page.waitForJsTimers(200); | ||
| const firstResult = await page.captureViewport(); | ||
| await browser.refresh(); | ||
| await page.waitForJsTimers(200); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gradually increased this value until the build passed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To avoid fluctuations, does it make sense to go slightly over the passed value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can assume the current value is already "slightly over". To find the exact timing, I am doing additional investigation in #134
| await page.waitForJsTimers(200); | ||
| const firstResult = await page.captureViewport(); | ||
| await browser.refresh(); | ||
| await page.waitForJsTimers(200); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To avoid fluctuations, does it make sense to go slightly over the passed value?
2 participants
Issue #, if available:
Description of changes:
Fix this issue
Downloaded the diff screenshot from these tests, figured it is a scrollbar fading animation after page refresh
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.