Jasmine having better modularity - jasmine-maven-plugin

I am a newbie to jasmine, please correct me if I am asking a wrong question.
I am working on a legacy system which has a lot java script code. I would like to write some tests for the same. Initially I thought of using buster since it's in beta I didn't explored much about it. Meantime while searching I came across jasmine. Writing tests in jasmine was simple, maven plugin makes jasmine to be integrated with CI also we can get coverage report. So I felt to use jasmine.
In our current legacy systems there are several js, which need's a lot of refactoring . But to start off writing some test.I need some help. Let me narrate the problem I am facing
We have a lot of scripts having conflicting function names, and global variable's and so on. So specifying the jsSource in pom or jstestconf file is cumbersome, as I need to exclude few files, sometimes scripts which needs tests might have a conflicting function name. Also some scripts may be dependent on other's and so on.
Is there a way in jasmine the below mentioned scenario could be achieved.
Test1.js
Include specific library, excluding common once
Include the java script(Source1.js) source which needs to tested
Then write the tests
Test2.js
Include specific library, excluding common once
Include the javascript source(Source2.js) which needs to be tested
to tested
Then write the tests
Something similar to junit's where we say include class which needs to be tested.
Doing some initial search I got to know by using requirejs I can achieve this. But I couldn't find any concrete example's.
I would need your opinion before proceeding further.
Also is there any other testing framework which I use which have good integration with maven & eclipse and better modularity of tests.

I've been using Karma to run jasmine tests, and you can specify the files Karma includes via the karma.conf.js files property. So you could set up 2 different configurations for Test1.js and Test2.js. For example (assuming you have node_modules and your other files are under my-application-root:
for config 1:
module.exports = function(config){
config.set({
basePath : './',
//files to load in the browser
files : [
'my-application-root/specific-library-1.js',
'my-application-root/Source1.js',
'my-application-root/test/Test1.js',
'my-application-root/node_modules/**/*.js'
],
exclude : [
'my-application-root/common-lib.js',
'my-application-root/specific-library-2.js',
],
.......
and for config 2:
module.exports = function(config){
config.set({
basePath : './',
//files to load in the browser
files : [
'my-application-root/specific-library-2.js',
'my-application-root/Source2.js',
'my-application-root/test/Test2.js',
'my-application-root/node_modules/**/*.js'
],
exclude : [
'my-application-root/common-lib.js',
'my-application-root/specific-library-1.js',
],
.......

Related

Silverstripe 4 - CSS and JS Requirements. How/what populates the /resources directory?

I have a SS3.x module that I have forked, pulled down from it's fork via composer, and started porting to SS4. So far so good, except when it comes to Requirements.
I'm using the Requirements format found in existing code in another module, which has a colon-separated format as follows:
Requirements::javascript('company/mymodule:javascript/SortableUploadField.js');
This file exists in the module at /vendor/company/mymodule/javascript/SortableUploadField.js. However on page load, I have a 404 in console as SS is looking for this file at /resources/company/mymodule/css/SortableUploadField.css. And this does not exist.
I added the following to my composer.json file for the module as I saw other modules doing this:
"extra": {
"installer-name": "sortableuploadfield",
"expose": [
"css",
"javascript"
]
},
And ran a composer update. But the /resources directory does not appear for this module (other modules are there). And I can't find any information online on how this is supposed to work.
Edit: As a sidenote, I wonder if the documentation for Requirements is misleading? It omits this caveat with modules and mention of the resources directory at all. If that documentation is meant only to convey the process for working with JS/CSS in normal mysite development, then it is just a bit confusing because the code samples us everywhere. Which wouldn't be a direct url to something in /vendor, surely.
Found this after tracing code that basically used the /resources directory. Short answer to my query is simply running
composer vendor-expose
This calls the VendorExposeTask that does this copying. The only other place I found this task being used is on VendorPlugin install method. So I assume that other than the above command, the only way SS actually does this on your behalf is on initial install of a module.

Troubleshoot Grunt concat and Uglify in Sails pipeline

I'm working on a Sails.js app using angular 1.5x for front end. Recently I began working with textAngular, which works good in development, however, for some reason running in production, which (I believe to be the issue) runs grunt concat and uglify, therefore minimizing all js, I get a js error regarding injecting into my angular module/app. If I remove all references to textAngular it will concat/uglify and run fine in production. I want to use textAngular, and don't believe it is an issue with those scripts per say. How should I go about troubleshooting this issue? Are there any concat or uglify options that might help me pinpoint or resolve the issue?
ADDITIONAL INFO:
The angular code for injecting textAngular:
var sangularApp = angular.module('sangularApp', ['datatables', 'textAngular']).
config(function($provide) { // provider-injector
$provide.decorator('taOptions', ['$delegate', function(taOptions) { // $delegate is the taOptions we are decorating
taOptions.toolbar = [
['pre', 'bold', 'italics', 'underline', 'strikeThrough','ol','insertLink', 'insertImage','html']
];
return taOptions;
}]);
});
Here is the error I get (when I run in production and the files are minified:
Error: [$injector:modulerr] http://errors.angularjs.org/1.5.0/$injector/modulerr?p0=sangularApp&p1=%5B%24injector%3Aunpr%5D%20http%3A%2F%2Ferrors.angularjs.org%2F1.5.0%2F%24injector%2Funpr%3Fp0%3Da%0Ad%2F%3C%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A1797%0APa%2Fo.%24injector%3C%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A20234%0Ad%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A18987%0Ae%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A19221%0Ak%2F%3C.invoke%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A19311%0Ad%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A18448%0Aj%2F%3C%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A18580%0Af%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A2243%0Aj%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A18357%0APa%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A20389%0A_%2Fg%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A9026%0A_%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A9329%0A%24%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A10%3A8641%0A%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A14%3A26564%0Afa.Callbacks%2Fj%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A2%3A7154%0Afa.Callbacks%2Fk.fireWith%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A2%3A7927%0A.ready%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A2%3A9741%0Ag%40http%3A%2F%2Fcutupcode.com%2Fmin%2Fproduction.min.js%3A1%3A1606%0A
This is a difficult question to respond to without some debugging information or console errors.
From what you've mentioned my suggestion would be to look back over your scripts and make sure that the additional library for textAngular has been included and that the injection of the library into your module is done correctly.
Minification and concatenation typically don't cause any issues for me when the library works fine without those tools applied.

Accessing Karma Configurations from a Jasmine Unit Test

I was wondering if it was possible to access the settings defined within my karma.config.js file, and if so how?
I'm currently using a Grunt task runner to perform various tasks like building, linting, packaging, etc. I'm also using Grunt to kick off the Karma test runner to run my Jasmine unit tests. Furthermore, I'm pulling in the Jasmine-jQuery library so I can define and read in JSON and HTML fixtures from separate files that I setup earlier.
While I was writing some new tests, I noticed that I was redefining my fixtures base path in every test file. So I decided to pull it out and put it into a global constant.
The problem I'm having is where I should define it. Currently, I have a file named "testSettings.js" that I'm including in my karma configuration, where I define a configuration object and set it to window.testSettings. Thats all well and good, but I think it would be better if I defined it within my karma configuration and then just referenced that from my tests. But there doesn't look like a way to do this... or is there?
My library versions are:
"karma": "~0.12.32"
"karma-jasmine": "~0.3.5"
"karma-jasmine-jquery": "~0.1.1"

Sailsjs has a 'prod' grunt task, why not a 'dev' task?

I want to create a file called config.js for the client end of my app, but it should be based on the environment. I've successfully done this for production using the tasks/register/prod.js file, but sailsjs does not seem to have an equivalent dev.js file.
I also can't find much information about this, so I'm hoping there is a standard workaround I'm just not thinking of.
I'm not sure why I found it so confusing, or why I never opened the README.md (duh!) in tasks/, but dev stuff goes in the default task (tasks/register/default.js).
ANSWER: README's are named as such for a very good reason.

Building multiple outputs through the same build process with external config

I'm trying to leverage GruntJS to create a build process that is uniform across multiple teams and projects at my company. The idea hear is that we have a config file for each application that only specifies the files that need to be processed and what bundles they need to be concatenated into at the end. The build process would be the same for all apps: pick up the config for the app, process files in each bundle using a uniform build process.
For Example:
asset.json config file specifies two bundles, "main" with 1.js + 2.js and "secondary" with 2.js and 3.js
Build process says for each bundle, preprocess, minify, then concatenate into a js file based on the bundle
Get output of "main.js" and "secondary.js"
The problem I'm running into is that Grunt takes a "static" configuration and executes it. I've already abstracted out the building of the configuration so that I can add chunks dynamically, but right now I don't see a better way forward than literally looping over each bundle and building out a unique task for each section of the build process for each bundle, building up queues of tasks to execute, and then running each task in the queues during the build process. Its definitely possible, but its a lot of manual work and seems prone to breaking. Is there way to just execute each task in order as I loop over the bundles? Any better way to achieve the same net result of config + source in, N bundles out?
I want to be clear that I am fully aware that Grunt CAN build multiple files. What I'm trying to do is separate the specification of how many bundles from the build steps themselves. Grunt core has to bake these two things together which means each project would have to go in and alter their build steps rather than an external configuration. As per the example above, I should be able to swap out the asset.json file specified in step 1 for any config file that has 1, 2, 3, ... N bundles with N files in each one (and potentially specifying a "type" like scripts or styles).
Edit 10/12/13: The Nitty Gritty posted an article yesterday that might be another approach to tackling your issue.
This can be done by passing the module name you want to build as a command line argument and loading in the whole assets file in your grunt config. Please note this is example code, I have not tested this, so it's possible you need to set paths etc. correct for your case.
Start with updating the assets.json file to a plain JavaScript file, and reform it like so:
module.exports = {
main: ["1.js", "2.js"],
secondary: ["2.js","3.js"]
}
Next, you can pass a command line argument to Grunt, which should specify one of the module names in assets.js. Example:
grunt --bundle=main
Now, you'll need to load in the assets.js file in the Gruntfile:
var assets = require('./assets'); // assuming assets.js is on the same level as your Gruntfile
And then you can get the argument name by using:
var bundle = grunt.option("bundle");
Now you can use bundle as your output file name and assets.bundle to get the array files for that bundle.

Resources