New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: revise interesting/uninteresting classification for AXNodes #6334
Conversation
878f57e
to
42d8451
Compare
This sounds good. Until then, I like this smaller, incremental change, so LGTM. |
@@ -264,11 +266,7 @@ class AXNode { | |||
private _isPlainTextField(): boolean { | |||
if (this._richlyEditable) return false; | |||
if (this._editable) return true; | |||
return ( | |||
this._role === 'textbox' || | |||
this._role === 'ComboBox' || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity, what was this 'ComboBox' role and why is it not relevant anymore?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm definitely not very knowledgeable in the area, but from searching around I concluded that there is no such role in the spec. There is a combobox
, but I'm not sure we want to categorize those as plain text fields? At least our tests don't want that. I think we should remove the ComboBox
for now as it is confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks!
42d8451
to
880fd0e
Compare
Minor changes to the logic for determining if an AXNode is interesting.
We might want to consider skipping this logic altogether and simply rely on CDP's
ignored
property on AXNodes