feat: add cy.exec() Cypress 15 misc test compatibility

[MikeMcC399]

• supersedes breaking: add changes needed for release 15 #983

Situation

PR cypress-io/cypress#32238 plans to update execa in Cypress from [email protected] to [email protected] and for cy.exec() to yield property exitCode instead of code.

PR #983 currently proposes to convert cypress/e2e/2-advanced-examples/misc.cy.js from using: Edit: closed in favor of this one

• code (Cypress 14 and below) to instead
• exitCode (Cypress 15 - currently unreleased)

causing a breaking change, in that the repo will then fail for Cypress 14, and scaffolded tests will also fail if a project is installed with Cypress 15 and then downgraded to Cypress 14 or below.

Change

In the test "'cy.exec() - execute a system command'" of cypress/e2e/2-advanced-examples/misc.cy.js, use Cypress.version to provide two different versions of cy.exec('pwd') appropriate for Cypress 14 and below, and for Cypress 15 respectively.

For publication on https://example.cypress.io/commands/misc update app/commands/misc.html to use Cypress 15 syntax with a comment to use code for Cypress 14 and below.

Add the npm package [email protected] to devDependencies. This is not essential, just good practice. Cypress already includes semver as a dependency (see https://www.npmjs.com/package/cypress?activeTab=dependencies) and so it is available anyway. Edit: removed because this does not work if Cypress is globally installed by npm.

Verification

On Ubuntu 24.04.3 LTS, Node.js 22.18.0 LTS

git clone https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress-example-kitchensink
cd cypress-example-kitchensink
npm ci
npm run start

In a separate terminal

npx cypress run -s cypress/e2e/2-advanced-examples/misc.cy.js

Confirm that all tests run.

git clone https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress
cd cypress
git switch breaking/update_execa
yarn
yarn cypress:run --project ../cypress-example-kitchensink -s ../cypress-example-kitchensink/cypress/e2e/2-advanced-examples/misc.cy.js

[cypress-app-bot]

• Create a Draft Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review. Mark the PR as Ready for Review when you're ready for a Cypress team member to review the PR.

[MikeMcC399]

• The basis for this PR is the change caused by breaking: update execa from 1.0.0 to 4.1.0  cypress#32238, so these changes need to be coordinated.

[cypress-app-bot]

🎉 This PR is included in version 5.1.0 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

[jennifer-shehane]

@MikeMcC399 These tests began failing after this merge: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/cypress-io/cypress/73417/workflows/ac918eaf-0377-4c50-8222-b46ac217b77a/jobs/3057018

[MikeMcC399]

@jennifer-shehane

@MikeMcC399 These tests began failing after this merge: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/cypress-io/cypress/73417/workflows/ac918eaf-0377-4c50-8222-b46ac217b77a/jobs/3057018

• It sounds like Cypress is using the changed tests for Cypress 15 which have the prerequisite of merging in breaking: update execa from 1.0.0 to 4.1.0  cypress#32238. The two PRs needs to be coordinated.

[MikeMcC399]

@jennifer-shehane / @AtofStryker

Sorry, I didn't quite anticipate this happening, although I did write that the changes need to be coordinated.

In fact CircleCI clones the default branch master of the kitchensink repo without any regard for the version of cypress-examples-kitchensink which is configured in https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress/blob/develop/packages/example/package.json

[jennifer-shehane]

@MikeMcC399 Yah, no worries. I did merge it. 😄 This makes sense. It is strange how we pull this into our tests honestly.

[MikeMcC399]

@jennifer-shehane

@MikeMcC399 Yah, no worries. I did merge it. 😄 This makes sense. It is strange how we pull this into our tests honestly.

This has highlighted some gaps in process and documentation in dealing with breaking API changes. It would be good to look at it again when things have settled down to try and make future transitions more robust.

In the meantime it would probably just be best to fast-track the execa PR so everything is matched up.

[AtofStryker]

@jennifer-shehane

@MikeMcC399 Yah, no worries. I did merge it. 😄 This makes sense. It is strange how we pull this into our tests honestly.

This has highlighted some gaps in process and documentation in dealing with breaking API changes. It would be good to look at it again when things have settled down to try and make future transitions more robust.

In the meantime it would probably just be best to fast-track the execa PR so everything is matched up.

@MikeMcC399 I'm looking into the execa PR again today. There's a windows related failure that I need to address