or considering latest adventures in JS land and extensions: jasmine.gjs 😄 why not
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for using npm as the repository for GJS, which is the #1 reason for > CGJS to exist. > > I wonder if, being this potentially the beginning of a new way to share > GJS modules, we should agree in a convention to make it clear to the rest > of JS community what is the module target. > > As example, naming all GJS modules as `gjs:jasmine` or `gjs-jasmine` or > ... `gjs/jasmine` .. or ... suggestions / opinions welcome :-) > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Edgar Merino <donvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Philip, I was thinking on making the jasmine-gjs available through >> NPM, so including it should be as easy as adding it to the package.json of >> the project. I'll report my progress on this. >> Using docker with travis however should help with the dated gjs found >> under ubuntu tasty, I'll give that a try too. >> >> Regards! >> >> El 6 dic. 2017 12:07 AM, <philip.chime...@gmail.com> escribió: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is really cool! Thanks for sharing it. >>> >>> For reference, the alternative approach I've always used with >>> jasmine-gjs is to integrate it with configure/make [1]. >>> >>> Travis's default Ubuntu images are quite old. They have more recently >>> enabled using Docker images, but you'd probably have to take a Fedora 27 >>> image or similar, write a Dockerfile to install jasmine-gjs, and publish it >>> on your own account in DockerHub or something like that. I haven't looked >>> into this yet. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/endlessm/eos-knowledge-lib/blob/master/Ma >>> kefile.am#L596-L599 >>> >>> Regards, >>> Philip C >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:59 AM Edgar Merino <donvo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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/WebRe >>>> flection/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> >>>> 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> >>>>> 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 >>>>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> javascript-list mailing list >>>> javascript-list@gnome.org >>>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> javascript-list mailing list >> javascript-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list >> >> >
_______________________________________________ javascript-list mailing list javascript-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/javascript-list
