How to review these changes 👓

Thank you for your contribution. To review these changes, choose one of the following options:

• Spin up a codespace
• Set up a local development environment

A Hubber will need to deploy your changes internally to review.

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

@Sharra-writes I see CI is still quite unhappy. Are the Review links supposed to work? I guess that feature was removed in 95d7a2a? 😕

@jsoref Our engineers are working to figure out the CI problems. It's a doc specific problem, which had everyone stumped for a bit, since docs and docs-internal are synced. Even though I trust you to know what you're talking about, I should probably run your wording by the relevant engineering team anyway to see if they have nitpicks. Hopefully all the checks will be fixed by the time they get back to me. 🤞

Edit: Right, review links. I don't actually know, because I was still very much being trained when that was removed, and no one explained it to me. 😅

Oh, I only know what words mean. I can't claim to understand if the changes I'm making are desirable/agreeable to GitHub. Take your time.

microsoft/playwright#12487 (comment)

SyntaxError: The requested module '@playwright/test' does not provide an export named 'Page'
I'm using node v16.13.1 and playwright 1.20.1.

Oh I see, it's a type. I changed it to import { test, expect, type Page } from '@playwright/test'; and I'm back in business.

-import { Page, test as Test } from '@playwright/test' 
+import { type Page, test as Test } from '@playwright/test' 

I know enough not to bother making a PR for this stuff.