Prevent crash in environments where Element.prototype.getAnimations is not available

[RobinMalfait]

Recently we made improvements to the Transition component and internal useTransition hook. We now use the Element.prototype.getAnimations API to know whether or not all transitions are done.

This API has been available in browsers since 2020, however jsdom doesn't have support for this. This results in a lot of failing tests where users rely on jsdom (e.g. inside of Jest or Vitest).

In a perfect world, jsdom is not used because it's not a real browser and there is a lot you need to workaround to even mimic a real browser.

I understand that just switching to real browser tests (using Playwright for example) is not an easy task that can be done easily.

Even our tests still rely on jsdom…

So to make the development experience better, we polyfill the Element.prototype.getAnimations API only in tests (process.env.NODE_ENV === 'test') and show a warning in the console on how to proceed.

The polyfill we ship simply returns an empty array for node.getAnimations(). This means that it will be enough for most tests to pass. The exception is if you are actually relying on transition-duration and transition-delay CSS properties.

The warning you will get looks like this:

Headless UI has polyfilled `Element.prototype.getAnimations` for your tests.
Please install a proper polyfill e.g. `jsdom-testing-mocks`, to silence these warnings.

Example usage:
```js
import { mockAnimationsApi } from 'jsdom-testing-mocks'
mockAnimationsApi()
```

Fixes: #3470
Fixes: #3469
Fixes: #3468

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
headlessui-react	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 11, 2024 3:18pm
headlessui-vue	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 11, 2024 3:18pm

[philipp-spiess]

should we also check for typeof process.env !== 'undefined' or make the process.env[] lookup an optional chain, just to prevent a crash in some very weird setups:

[RobinMalfait]

Yeah not a bad idea honestly

[plavski]

Just a note to say that happy-dom, another very popular framework for tests, also does not support getAnimations: https://github.com/capricorn86/happy-dom/blob/afc3692e8dde4d3769706fb36f7818b6d41197bc/packages/happy-dom/src/nodes/shadow-root/ShadowRoot.ts#L185

So any messages should not be jsdom specific imo

[RobinMalfait]

@plavski the jsdom-testing-mocks has jsdom in the name but isn't specific to jsdom. It has general purpose mocks. I don't think it's useful to try and detect in which environment you are. jsdom is typically the default, and since the mock package is not specific to jsdom (regardless the name) it should be fine to use 👍

[RobinMalfait]

Updated the wording slightly

[plavski]

@plavski the jsdom-testing-mocks has jsdom in the name but isn't specific to jsdom. It has general purpose mocks. I don't think it's useful to try and detect in which environment you are. jsdom is typically the default, and since the mock package is not specific to jsdom (regardless the name) it should be fine to use 👍

Cool. It was only the wording feeling overly specific that was the issue for me, and your change has cleared that up. Thanks!

[corneliusroemer]

Just tested this and it all works as expected. Without explicit polyfill there's a warning. With polyfill as suggested, no warning, see https://github.com/loculus-project/loculus/pull/2766/files for implementation details.