Executor for cypress 9.X - Electron - test execution stuck with "No matching issuer found" errors
Describe the bug When tests are ran with Cypress 9 executor using (default) Electron "browser" the execution is stuck with "No matching issuer found" errors.
To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:
-
tk create test --type cypress:v9/test --git-uri https://github.com/kubeshop/testkube --git-branch cypress-tests --git-path test/cypress/executors/cypress-9 --name cypress-9-executor-test-electron -
tk run test cypress-9-executor-test-electron - See error
Expected behavior
Not really sure. It's a known bug on the Cypress side (in 9.X), which was fixed in 10.X series. We support running older versions (currently 9.X and 8.X), and the executor with default config (Electron) won't run the tests. The workaround is to choose different browser (like chrome) - for example by creating test with --executor-args "--browser chrome". But, I don't think we should overwrite the default browser, because doing it may be tricky (different config options).
Screenshots Just after test execution is started:
(Run Starting)
│ Cypress: 9.7.0 │
│ Browser: Electron 100 (headless) │
│ Node Version: v16.14.2 (/usr/local/bin/node) │
│ Specs: 1 found (dummy_test.spec.js) │
the only thing that's happening is a lot of ERROR: No matching issuer found errors:
[60:0914/131718.605486:ERROR:cert_verify_proc_builtin.cc(681)] CertVerifyProcBuiltin for testkube.kubeshop.io failed:
----- Certificate i=0 (OU=Cypress Proxy Server Certificate,O=Cypress Proxy CA,L=Internet,ST=Internet,C=Internet,CN=testkube.kubeshop.io) -----
ERROR: No matching issuer found
[60:0914/131718.605486:ERROR:cert_verify_proc_builtin.cc(681)] CertVerifyProcBuiltin for redirector.gvt1.com failed:
----- Certificate i=0 (OU=Cypress Proxy Server Certificate,O=Cypress Proxy CA,L=Internet,ST=Internet,C=Internet,CN=redirector.gvt1.com) -----
ERROR: No matching issuer found
I left it running for an hour - hundreds of additional errors like these appeared, and that's all.
@TheBrunoLopes what should we do in cases like this?
@tkonieczny, given that we will support now Cypress 12 instead, should this issue be closed?