suggestion: this could be done in the getTextualContentWithTreeWalker function

suggestion: use the censorText function

question: I don't get this comment

If the node privacy level is MASK_UNLESS_ALLOWLISTED, we use the default privacy level
If the enablePrivacyForActionName is true, we use the node privacy level
Otherwise, we use the allow level

That's exactly what's the code is doing. Could you explain why we do this instead?

TODO: we should make enablePrivacyForActionName true by default for the next major version

Same here, why?

this won't work because there would always be a case when we set the nodeSelfPrivacy to ALLOW
if we use configuration.defaultPrivacyLevel === NodePrivacyLevel.MASK_UNLESS_ALLOWLISTED as a check
then when we set defaultPrivacyLevel to ALLOW, and override the node privacy level to MASK_UNLESS_ALLOWLISTED

I guess something is missing here?

TODO: we should make enablePrivacyForActionName true by default for the next major version

If we set this by default when the configuration.defaultPrivacyLevel: MASK, it would simplify things greatly and align with Session Replay.

The last paragraph was badly formed, I was explaining why we have to check for isAllowlistMaskEnabled(configuration.defaultPrivacyLevel, nodeSelfPrivacy). When we set defaultPrivacyLevel to ALLOW, and then set the node class name to MASK_UNLESS_ALLOWLISTED, without checking the nodeSelfPrivacy level we will not be able to apply the allowlist, because we are ignoring the nodePrivacyLevel and setting it to ALLOW.

We need all these checks because we override the node privacy level to allow here. By making MASK level actually masks action names, we can get rid of the override and the checks for it.

I updated the comments to reflect this. I hope it explains better this time.

suggestion: What about something like this:

const nodePrivacyLevel =
  nodeSelfPrivacy === PrivacyLevel.MASK_UNLESS_ALLOW_LISTED || configuration.enablePrivacyForActionName
    ? nodeSelfPrivacy
    : NodePrivacyLevel.ALLOW

suggestion: use getNodePrivacyLevel instead, so that privacy level follows the privacy inheritance rules.

suggestion: This should be unnecessary. window.$DD_ALLOW should be undefined at the beginning of the test (if it's not, then a cleanup is missing in another test), and since the test does not change it, it should stay undefined.

suggestion: it looks like you only use the clickActionBase.name. Maybe keep ClickActionBase private and just use a string variable instead of defining the whole structure?

suggestion: don't use declare global as it will declare a global variable everywhere, including in our customers source code (i.e. $DD_ALLOW will be visible in their code editor autocompletion).

Instead, use something like this:

interface BrowserWindow {
    $DD_ALLOW?: Set<string>
}
// then
(window as BrowserWindow).$DD_ALLOW

(Not pretty, but we have some thoughts to improve this in the future

nitpick: maybe move those functions back to privacy.ts as they are not constants