Hello, I've updated the repository for the extension, Karma is no longer
used for testing, jasmine-gjs is used instead. This is even working with
Travis CI (although it runs on a pretty dated gjs version, 1.40).
Transpiling should now be optional, and testing is a lot let hackish
(e.g. you no longer need a full browser implementation like PhantomJS
and Karma) and it's running under native GJS.
Webpack is still used, which requires a build step before testing to
generate a single test UMD module. This makes executing a single test
file impossible right now, they all have to be executed at once.
Using Andrea's cgjs, webpack can be avoided, it'll make all NPM modules
available in a more native way. Also, tests can be run individually,
which is an added benefit.
Next step would be to give cgjs a try to use require instead of the
native imports mechanism of GJS.
Regards.
On 04/12/17 20:02, Edgar Merino wrote:
Hello Andrea, CGJS looks promising, it actually solves what I was
missing/patching, and it can be easily integrated with WebPack (which
in turn provides ES6 imports through UMD, if needed/preferred).
To eliminate transpiling completly when testing, currently you can use
firefox, but a better option would be something like jasmine-gjs. I'll
give this a try and report back, this should also eliminate the
dependency on Karma, which is mostly a hack here, but there's got to
be some work done to integrate that with webpack (needed mostly for
ES6 imports).
I'll see if plugin-transform-builtin-classes helps, thanks for the tip!
Regards.
On 04/12/17 19:15, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Babel transpiling builtins is broken since ever:
https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/4480
I wonder if using
https://github.com/WebReflection/babel-plugin-transform-builtin-classes
would help
Also please have a look at cgjs which brings CommonJS to GJS:
https://github.com/cgjs/cgjs
Regards
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna <s...@ramkrishna.me
<mailto:s...@ramkrishna.me>> wrote:
I'm going to defer to someone like Phillip Chimento who knows
this stuff way better than I do. However..
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:54 PM Edgar Merino <donvo...@gmail.com
<mailto:donvo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've posted a similar email to the GSE mailing list, but
I thought it would be helpful for any GJS developer looking
to create quality code by applying TDD.
It'll be great to read your thoughts on this approach.
Thank you for putting the effort into doing this. This is pretty
neat concept. At one point, a couple years ago I was trying to
figure out how to do testing on extensions as a whole as part of
the release process. The test was a basic "Does it work?". But
having a mechanism to do unit tests would be pretty handy
especially if it could be incorporated as part of the submission
process. So from a policy perspective I think this is pretty
awesome.
sri
_______________________________________________
javascript-list mailing list
javascript-list@gnome.org <mailto:javascript-list@gnome.org>
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list
<https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list>
_______________________________________________
javascript-list mailing list
javascript-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list
