Hi Tankred, > I'm currently working on porting the safewith.me server to Node.js.
interesting. Btw: https://github.com/openpgpjs/openpgpjs/issues/24 > There is still a big "Todo" in the Makefile for "make test". Yes, indeed. > Perhaps using node.js would ease the use of a continuous integration tool > such as jenkins, since one would not have to spin up a DOM with Rhino in > order to do automate unit tests in s shell script without a browser. This would be very desired. I would prefer a build bot (since it's way simpler and smaller), but it's almost the same (ticket: https://github.com/openpgpjs/openpgpjs/issues/4). Also in this context: On 25.11.2011, at 13:35, Felix 'FX' Lindner wrote: >> Do you have a continuous build server? > No. But we can set one up if that's needed. So we might have the chance to run a CI system somewhere. > This would allow us to run the all tests automatically when commits are made > to github, which would make it easier for newcomers to the project (such as > me ;)) to be more confident when commiting patches, as they would be > informed via email when their commit causes the tests to fail. Yes! > But probably the most important reason for doing this would be that we would > open the project up to the ever growing community of node.js developers and > potentially attract more people. Yes! > I think this could also be a big chance for the project to be taken more > seriously, as even the biggest sceptics of javascript cryptography would > agree, that it would makes sense to have a fully compatible server/client > OpenPGP solution with a single codebase. Yes. > I will start to play around with the node.js/qunit/jenkins combo and see if > it helps safewith.me. If the experiment proves successful, I would gladly > try to do the same with openpgp.js. The main reason being, that safewith.me > would profit alot from having openpgp.js be node.js compatbile. That would be very good. Also an automated way of coverage visualization might be desirable... Best regards, Alex
