[Coquelicot] coquelicot contributions

[Lunar]

Konrad Mohrfeldt:
> On 07.01.2017 21:39, Lunar wrote:
> > One thing that is unclear to me for now: do you want to implement new
> > features that require reimplementing the current JavaScript code?
> > Except cleaner code, what is to be gained by switching to ES5?
> 
> Apart from becoming cleaner it also becomes testable, because right now
> I don’t really see how that would work out.

Good, I love tests. :)

At some point, I was hoping I could investigate the PhantomJS driver for
Selenium. This should allow to do full stack testing, including
the JavaScript parts, expanding the current Ruby test suite. But I don't
plan to work on this soon.

> >> The js build system would introduce webpack as a build tool. Webpack
> >> receives an entry file, recursively resolves dependencies
> >> (import/require statements) and outputs a single js file that would be
> >> added as the only script tag in the rendered HTML page. It also
> >> supports a watch mode, so we could keep the original "just works™"
> >> behaviour if we spin up webpack when starting the development server.
> > 
> > I don't see a Debian package for Webpack. :(
> > 
> > Would you know of any Ruby library that would provide similar features?
> > Packaging new gems for Debian is quite easy. 
> > 
> > I see Debian as a ruby-uglifier package which is a wrapper for UglifyJS.
> > I'd rather try to avoid adding a strict build dependency on Node.js. The
> > above package requires Node.js for example.
> 
> The thing is that webpack does more than uglification (actually it
> doesn’t do uglification at all; it utilizes uglify). The most important
> part is the ability to resolve common-js modules. Debian has a
> browserify-lite package. That’s still node-js, but is included since
> jessie. Probably works too. That would leave out Babel for transforming
> ES6 code to ES5 but as that is mostly syntax I don’t see a problem with it.

Looks good! :)

> 
> > From the top of my head: watch out for the Crowford (“don't use for
> > evil”) license. It's non-free and caused us huge pain in the past.
> > 
> 
> Most node modules are MIT, but I keep an eye on it. Everything in Debian
> should work, right?

If it's already in Debian, it's perfect. :)

Thanks,
-- 
Lunar
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listes.potager.org/pipermail/coquelicot/attachments/20170118/17391234/attachment.sig>