Specify specs and readonly configuration (chromeWebSecurity) per matrix container about github-action HOT 4 CLOSED

@a8trejo

I can't say what the best way is to engage with the Cypress Cloud team as I am an external contributor and I'm not part of the internal Cypress.io team.

If you have an Account Executive allocated to you they would be able to advise you I imagine. I have also seen feature requests submitted through Discord picked up. https://www.cypress.io/support includes some information about submitting support tickets for Cypress Cloud.

from github-action.

@a8trejo

I understand that you would like the Cypress GitHub Action to allow you to either specify different configuration options per Cypress spec or per GitHub Action container. At a first reading, it does not look like this would be a possibility for the action.

Per spec

The Configuration > Overriding Options describes the case of dynamically altering configuration options. The Browser option chromeWebSecurity you specifically mention is however not on the list Test configuration of options which can be changed at run time. I think you are aware of this, since you used the term "readonly" in the subject of your request.

Per matrix container

The allocation of test specs to matrix containers, running tests in parallel in the Cypress Cloud, is controlled by the Cloud software, not by the Cypress GitHub Action. This is part of the Cypress Cloud > Smart Orchestration > Load Balancing strategy.

Suggestion

I would highly recommend the Cypress technical community on Discord as a resource for you to use
(click on button). There is a specific channel cypress-cloud where you can get advice.

from github-action.

Thank you @MikeMcC399 !, I do understand chromeWebSecurity is readonly as a dynamic configuration, hence my workaround of having a specific Github actions job only for the specs that need it.

Is there a place to submit feature requests to the Cypress Cloud team? Should it be with our cypress account executive?

from github-action.

@a8trejo

I am going to close this request as I don't see any technical scope at this time for implementing the request in the action. If there is any new information to change this opinion we can re-open the issue.

from github-action.