feat: error when updating a 9.X value in 10.X in the pluginsFile

[elevatebart]

NOTE: this PR has been split in 2. This one only add the renamed config options to the array and makes sure the config is validated after setupNodeEvents.
The other one builds contextualization linked in the video below.

• Closes UNIFY-1216
• Closes UNIFY-1311

User facing changelog

In setupNodeEvents(), when updating options of 9.X that are not in 10.X, users get an error like below

Additional details

trimmed.mov

The wrapper

To achieve the behavior above, I set all breaking options setters to error.
The following code will throw an error.

setupNodeEvents(on, config) {
  config.componentFolder = 'src'
}

This way, cypress gives users the line and codeframe where the invalid config set is done. This helps avoid the pain of searching for the file and line where the wrong "set" is done.

Missing breaking values

This PR adds integrationFolderand ignoreTestFiles to the breakingOptions list of configs that worked in 9 and are ignored in 10. To make ignoreTestFiles easier, I refactored the testFiles error slightly by using the newName property.

I also added to all the existing errors the management of the stack trace.

[cypress-bot]

Thanks for taking the time to open a PR!

• 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.
• Become familiar with the Code Review Checklist for guidelines on coding standards and what needs to be done before a PR can be merged.

[cypress]

---

Test summary

17788 • 0 • 217 • 0 • 0

---

Run details

Project	cypress
Status	Passed
Commit	4c71ef6
Started	Mar 24, 2022 3:47 PM
Ended	Mar 24, 2022 3:59 PM
Duration	12:21 💡
OS	Linux Debian - 10.10
Browser	Multiple

View run in Cypress Dashboard ➡️

---

This comment has been generated by cypress-bot as a result of this project's GitHub integration settings. You can manage this integration in this project's settings in the Cypress Dashboard

[lmiller1990]

Personally like to assert the actual error using a cy.get(...).contains(...). Not a blocker, but I think those are more clear and easier to debug than Percy snapshots.

[lmiller1990]

Seems fine, left one non blocking comment on the test (don't like Percy alone, I like the more explicit assertions) but still going to give it a ✔️ .

To confirm - if you delete the property in your video and save the file, the config file re-executes and everything works as expected and you can proceed?