Use configured `downloadsFolder` for Cypress

[tevanoff]

Issue: #

What Changed

The Cypress integration was hardcoded to use Cypress's default value for downloadsFolder, cypress/downloads. Changes to that in the Cypress config would not be respected, and archive files would always be written to the default.

This fixes that by reading the correct value from the Cypress config object.

How to test

• Set downloadsFolder to a non-default value in cypress.config.ts
• Run Cypress tests, ensure Chromatic archives ouput in the directory set above, not in cypress/downloads
• Run a Chromatic build, ensure all is 💯

[codacy-production[bot]]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
:white_check_mark: +0.02% (target: -1.00%)	:white_check_mark: 100.00% (target: 80.00%)

Coverage variation details

| | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Common ancestor commit (753f16790758d4771c34502acacd0f420cbd44a6) | 259 | 245 | 94.59% | | | Head commit (a4cd9c49ab30c0253bf654a3956c92b29b4c294e) | 260 (+1) | 246 (+1) | 94.62% (**+0.02%**) | **Coverage variation** is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: ` - `

Diff coverage details

| | Coverable lines | Covered lines | Diff coverage | | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | ------------- | | Pull request (#164) | 2 | 2 | **100.00%** | **Diff coverage** is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: `/ * 100%`

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

---

_{:rocket: Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.}

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[andrewortwein]

@skitterm, Todd brought up that we don't currently have any unit tests that verify things are written to a configured outputDir. But we also don't have any tests covering the default case, so this could be a bit of a rabbit hole. Do you have any opinion on whether it's worth prolonging this fix to implement tests in this area?

[skitterm]

Do you have any opinion on whether it's worth prolonging this fix to implement tests in this area?

@andrewortwein @tevanoff my gut says that it's not worth the time to add the tests, where we didn't see an easy way of putting them in.