You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 29, 2024. It is now read-only.
Like we did for ignoreSynchronization (see beta branch if we haven't merged beta into master yet). @mgiambalvo I'm assigning you, since it seems blocking-proxy related. This will be a breaking change, so we might want to hold off on the 5.0 release until we do this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This makes sure that people who change rootEl in their tests (which is
uncommon, but potentially useful) will see the right behavior.
Fixesangular#3905
heathkit
added a commit
to heathkit/protractor
that referenced
this issue
Jan 4, 2017
This makes sure that people who change rootEl in their tests (which is
uncommon, but potentially useful) will see the right behavior.
Fixesangular#3905
heathkit
added a commit
to heathkit/protractor
that referenced
this issue
Jan 4, 2017
This makes sure that people who change rootEl in their tests (which is
uncommon, but potentially useful) will see the right behavior.
Fixesangular#3905
This isn't actually necessary - rootEl is read in the waitForAngular call outside of the control flow, so the current behavior is correct.
The Blocking Proxy integration will need to change so that rootEl can be updated at the right place in the control flow, which will come with angular/blocking-proxy#16
This use case is strange, but would be expected behavior. Also, I'm just generally bothered by the idea that ignoreSynchronization is being replaced with a function and rootEl is not. They're similar flags and should be set/used the same way.
Like we did for
ignoreSynchronization
(seebeta
branch if we haven't mergedbeta
intomaster
yet). @mgiambalvo I'm assigning you, since it seems blocking-proxy related. This will be a breaking change, so we might want to hold off on the 5.0 release until we do this?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: