* chore: temporarily disable FF tests on CI
The tests are regularly flaking (see #6861 for some investigation). In
the mean time it's blocking us landing and releasing, so we'll
temporarily skip FF tests for now.
Co-authored-by: Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
* fix: wider compat TS types and CI checks to ensure correct type defs
This PR improves our TS types further to make sure they are usable in a
TS environment where ES Modules are the target output. Our use of
`export =` is problematic this environment as TypeScript does not allow
`export =` to be used and it errors.
The fix for the type issues to avoid `export =` is to instead define the
functions that you gain access to when you import Puppeteer as top level
functions in our `types.d.ts` file. We can do this by declaring them
explicitly in `src/node.ts`. These are then rolled into `lib/types.d.ts`
at build time. The downside to this is that we have to keep those
declarations in sync with the Puppeteer API; should we add a new method
to the `Puppeteer` class, we must add it to the `nodes.ts` declarations.
However, this could easily be automated by a small script that walks the
AST and generates these. I will do that in a follow-up PR, but I
consider this low risk given how rarely the very top level API of
Puppeteer changes. The nice thing about this approach is we no longer
need our script that hacks on changes to `lib/types.d.ts`.
To avoid yet more releases to fix issues in one particular TS
environment, this PR also includes a suite of example setups that we
test on each CI run. Each sample folder contains `good.ts`, which should
have no TS errors, and `bad.ts`, which should have some errors. The test
first packs Puppeteer into a tar, and then installs it from that tar
into each project. This should replicate how the published package
behaves when it is installed. We then check that we get no errors on
`good.ts`, and the expected errors on `bad.ts`.
We have a variety of test projects that cover both TS and JS source
code, and CJS and ESM imports and outputs.
Else it's missed when npm publish happens. Didn't pick this up in my testing because a previous PR that changed this hadn't landed at the time of testing so the bug was missed.
This PR aims to vastly improve our TS types and how we ship them.
Our previous attempt at shipping TypeScript was unfortunately flawed for
many reasons when compared to the @types/puppeteer package:
* It only worked if you needed the default export. If you wanted to
import a type that Puppeteer uses, you'd have to do `import type X
from 'puppeteer/lib/...'`. This is not something we want to encourage
because that means our internal file structure becomes almost public
API.
* It gave absolutely no help to CommonJS users in JS files because it
would warn people they needed to do `const pptr =
require('puppeteer').default, which is not correct.
* I found a bug in the `evaluate` types which mean't you couldn't
override the types to provide more info, and TS would insist the types
were all `unknown`.
The goal of this PR is to support:
1. In a `ts` file, `import puppeteer from 'puppeteer'`
1. In a `ts` file, `import type {ElementHandle} from 'puppeteer'`
1. In a `ts` file, referencing a type as `puppeteer.ElementHandle`
1. In a `ts` file, you can get good type inference when running
`foo.evaluate(x => x.clientHeight)`.
1. In a `js` file using CJS, you can do `const puppeteer =
require('puppeteer')` and get good type help from VSCode.
To test this I created a new empty repository with two test files in,
one `.ts` file with this in:
https://gist.github.com/jackfranklin/22ba2f390f97c7312cd70025a2096fc8,
and a `js` file with this in:
https://gist.github.com/jackfranklin/06bed136fdb22419cb7a8a9a4d4ef32f.
These files included enough code to check that the types were behaving
as I expected.
The fix for our types was to make use of API Extractor, which we already
use for our docs, to "rollup" all the disparate type files that TS
generates into one large `types.d.ts` which contains all the various
types that we define, such as:
```ts
export declare class ElementHandle {...}
export type EvaluateFn ...
```
If we then update our `package.json` `types` field to point to that file
in `lib/types.d.ts`, this then allows a developer to write:
```
import type {ElementHandle} from 'puppeteer'
```
And get the correct type definitions. However, what the `types.d.ts`
file doesn't do out of the box is declare the default export, so
importing Puppeteer's default export to call a method such as `launch`
on it will get you an error.
That's where the `script/add-default-export-to-types.ts` comes in. It
appends the following to the auto-generated `types.d.ts` file:
```ts
declare const puppeteer: PuppeteerNode;
export = puppeteer;
```
This tells TypeScript what the default export is, and by using the
`export =` syntax, we make sure TS understands both in a TS ESM
environment and in a JS CJS environment.
Now the `build` step, which is run by GitHub Actions when we release,
will generate the `.d.ts` file and then extend it with the default
export code.
To ensure that I was generating a valid package, I created a new
repository locally with the two code samples linked in Gists above. I
then ran:
```
npm init -y
npm install --save-dev typescript
npx tsc --init
```
Which gives me a base to test from. In Puppeteer, I ran `npm pack`,
which packs the module into a tar that's almost identical to what would
be published, so I can be confident that the .d.ts files in there are
what would be published.
I then installed it:
```
npm install --save-dev ../../puppeteer/puppeteer-7.0.1-post.tgz
```
And then reloaded VSCode in my dummy project. By deliberately making
typos and hovering over the code, I could confirm that all the goals
listed above were met, and this seems like a vast improvement on our
types.
This PR updates our `files` list to be more specific; rather than include everything from `lib`, we include just `.js`, `.d.ts`, and their equivalent sourcemaps. This prevents noisy meta-files like `.tsbuildinfo` sneaking into the package, which are no use to anyone.
* fix(launcher): output correct error message for browser
When running `npm run release` today I got this error logged:
```
Error: Could not find browser revision 848005. Run "PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox npm install" or "PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox yarn install" to download a supported Firefox browser binary.
at ChromeLauncher.launch (/Users/jacktfranklin/src/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/node/Launcher.js:80:27)
```
The error is only partially correct; I did have the browser revision
missing, but I needed the Chromium browser, not Firefox. It turns out
the logic in `Launcher.ts` didn't take this into account; it mistakenly
had been hardcoded to always log out the error as if the Firefox binary
was missing.
This PR updates the message depending on the browser:
Chrome error:
> Error: Could not find expected browser (chrome) locally. Run npm
> install or yarn install to download the correct Chromium revision
> (848005).
Firefox error:
> Error: Could not find expected browser (firefox) locally. Run
> "PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox npm install" or "PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox
> yarn install" to download a supported Firefox browser binary.
* Update src/node/Launcher.ts
Co-authored-by: Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
Co-authored-by: Mathias Bynens <mathias@qiwi.be>
In all my excitement about shipping types, we forgot to export the
actual `d.ts` file that makes it all happen... :(
I didn't pick this up locally because I was testing with `npm link`,
which does a symbolic link and therefore doesn't mirror the list of
files that make it into the published package.
To test this change, I made the change and ran `npm pack` to generate a
tar. I then created a new empty directory and did `npm init -y` followed
by `npm install path/to/puppeteer-7.tgz`.
I then initialised TypeScript, and wrote this:
```js
import puppeteer from 'puppeteer';
async function run() {
const browser = await puppeteer.launch()
const page = await browser.newPage()
await page.goto('https://foo.com')
}
run();
```
As I typed I got autocompletions and if I were to make an error, I'd get
a TypeScript error.
There is follow up work to be done because this unfortunately does not
work if you use `require` rather than ES Modules. @AviVahl suggested a
change in https://github.com/puppeteer/puppeteer/issues/6807 but I
cannot get it to work, so I'd like to do more investigation here. In the
mean time, whatever the contents of `cjs-entry.d.ts`, we should
definitely be exporting it as part of the module, so this PR is still
good to land.
This corresponds to Chromium 90.0.4403.0
This roll includes:
- Cut screenshot by ViewPort size, not position (crrev.com/c/2643792)
BREAKING CHANGE:
- `page.screenshot` cuts screenshot content by the ViewPort size, not ViewPort position.
This corresponds to Chromium 89.0.4389.0.
This roll includes:
- Add `SameParty` attribute to cookies
https://crrev.com/c/2598846
- Anchor `target=_blank` implies `rel=noopener`
https://crrev.com/c/1630010
- Don’t expect ignored elements in the AXTree
https://crrev.com/c/2505362
BREAKING CHANGE: The built-in `aria/` selector query handler doesn’t return ignored elements anymore.
Issue: #6758
Similar to our earlier Travis CI setup, we continue to run exhaustive checks on Linux, while also verifying the build + unit tests still work on other platforms.
Issue: #6726
This PR replaces https://github.com/puppeteer/puppeteer/pull/6289 with a simpler approach to types where we compile them all alongside the compiled code (so for every `foo.js` that is generated, we generate `foo.d.ts`).
By default that's not enough, as when you `import puppeteer from 'puppeteer'` in Node land you import `cjs-entry.js`, so we also create `cjs-entry.d.ts` which TypeScript will then pick up. This type file tells TypeScript that the thing that `cjs-entry.js` exposes is an instance of the `Puppeteer` class, which then hooks all the types up.
The previous PR (https://github.com/puppeteer/puppeteer/pull/6289) tried to merge all our typedefs into one big file via API Extractor, but this isn't really necessary a good experience for the developer.
One important consideration is that you _could_ consider this a breaking change. I'm not sure how likely it is, but it could cause problems for:
* Projects that didn't have any type info for Puppeteer and treated all its exports as `any` may now start having legitimate type failures.
* Projects that depend on the `@types/puppeteer` package may have issues if they now swap to use this one and the types aren't quite aligned.
In addition, once we do ship a release with this change in, it will mean that we have to treat any changes to any type definitions as release-note-worthy, and any breaking changes to type definitions will need to be treated as breaking code changes (nearly always a breaking type def means a breaking change anyway), but it's worth considering that once we expose these typedefs we should treat them as first class citizens of the project just like we would with the actual source code.
I also fully expect to have some bugs with our types, or have users create issues/PRs to change our types, but I think that's a good thing and it should settle down.
I've tested this locally by creating a new package, linking Puppeteer via `npm link puppeteer` and then checking that VSCode correctly shows me the right things when I use `Go to Definition` on something that comes from the Puppeteer source code.
