Remove incorrect typing for Cypress.Commands.overwrite - does not accept options

[jennifer-shehane]

• Closes Types for Cypress.Commands.overwrite are incorrect - does not take command options #5341

User facing changelog

Updated typing for Cypress.Commands.overwrite to not allow an options object as an argument.

Additional details

You can see in our commands.coffee file that the overwrite method is never passed the option object, it only accepts name and callbackFn.

cypress/packages/driver/src/cypress/commands.coffee

Lines 151 to 152 in a038e7f

	overwrite: (name, fn) ->
	storeOverride(name, fn)

How has the user experience changed?

Now when using typings, it will no longer suggest that Cypress.Commands.overwrite accepts options that it never did accept.

Wrong suggestion

Now will only suggest

PR Tasks

• Have tests been added/updated?
• Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation? Remove function signature that accepted options into Cypress.Commands.overwrite cypress-documentation#2148
• Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?

[cypress-bot]

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

• Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
• Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

• The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
• The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

• The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
• Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
• The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

• The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
• Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
• The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
• New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
• There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

• The change does not reimplement code.
• There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
• There is no redundant or duplicate code.
• There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
• Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

• The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

[kuceb]

great, docs are already in