Ernesto García

If the fix lies on jsdom, then the fix on our side is to merely update the jsdom dependency, right? Which, BTW, may require an update to the jsdom dependency...

This seems like something that would be good to look into. I have zero experience with puppeteer, but would love to see this tackled and in the process to get...

For instance, an acceptable alternative that seems viable from what you mention the issue is right now, is that we could require all matchers to not consume the received `element`...

@sandinmyjoints do you have any comments on this? I'm trying to figure out if there can be some actionable in the future, or else close the issue.

Thanks for your bug report. Indeed, this should work the same as with ``. Here's where we treat numeric inputs differently: https://github.com/testing-library/jest-dom/blob/637529e3892611092671f30c135587c130fbf92d/src/utils.js#L191-L192

I sometimes think we should not have added the `.toHaveStyle` custom matcher to this library. It is by far the one that gives more headaches. In this case I cannot...

I'm all for it. There are interesting alternative ways to put it in @eps1lon's response. I still think I prefer what @diegohaz originally suggested. That is, I prefer `expect(option).toBeActiveDescendant()` over...

Oh ok. Fair enough. But in my case I do not see it less readable. Just wanted to clear that up. Because I too favor readability. What is it less...

Ok, I can relate to that. Thanks for clarifying it. Let's wait for @diegohaz's input then on what he things of all this. I hope we can get this soon....

I may start to work on this soon, and I'm still torn on how to name it. Though it's not just the name conundrum, but also how the API would...