Istanbul seems great - seen lots of awesomeness there. Even blanket seems pretty cool. But none seem to play nice, and if they do, I can't figure out how to get it to play with grunt and if I can, I'm left with the problem of running coffee-script.
For example, this post gives a great example and it seems great, but no grunt! Any help?
I'm using one grunt library for that. It's called Grunt Mocha Test.
It plays well when your mocha tests are for nodejs backend project. I hope my configuration helps you :
mochaTest:
options:
require:
- 'coffee-script/register'
- './test/mocha.coffee'
- 'coverage/blanket'
quiet: true
reporter: 'html-cov'
captureFile: 'coverage.html'
src:
- 'test/**/*.coffee'
The format for my grunt configuration files is in yaml, because I'm using another plugin that separates the tasks.
my mocha.coffee file looks something like this :
# Initialize Should for chai
global.chai = require 'chai'
global.chai.use require 'chai-as-promised'
global.chai.config.includeStack = true
global.should = chai.should()
Related
I'm converting a project that was built using Create React App to use ParcelJS as a bundler instead. Strangely, a dependency that I imported during development (#twilio/voice-sdk) works fine in the CRA version of the application, but I get the following error when I try to invoke the constructor in the Parcel version:
TypeError: (this._options.AudioHelper || audiohelper_1.default) is not a constructor
The package is identical between both (#v2.1.1, the latest). I'm importing using ESM syntax, so:
import { Device } from '#twilio/voice-sdk'
I trying using CommonJS syntax (require) and it still didn't work. I've dug into the compiled code, and that seems to be the issue. I imagine there are a lot of differences, but one that I've noticed is here:
On the left is the code compiled by Create React App, which does seem to be exporting something more substantial than on the left - is the export just an empty object? If so, it's no wonder I'm getting a constructor error.
Unfortunately, no amount of googling and SO sleuthing has clarified what I could do to make ParcelJS transpile this dependency properly, if that's the issue. I've tried to make the babel config for ParcelJS match CRA more closely by adding the following to a babel.config.json
{
"plugins": [
"#babel/plugin-transform-modules-commonjs"
]
}
But no luck. Any ideas from where to go from here, or is it time to switch to Webpack?
It looks like Twilio package has a problem when using Parcel 2: https://github.com/twilio/twilio-voice.js/issues/101
I managed to get a couple of EAK/grunt based Ember apps upgraded to 1.11 with HTMLBars, and then got them migrated to Ember CLI/Brocolli. The unit tests were setup for karma test runner so I'm looking at how to get those running in the CLI projects now, but I didn't write the tests and really have no experience with unit testing javascript modules.
Searching around the iNet, I can see that others have also used karma becasue of its coverage output and are trying to get it to work with Ember CLI, but that Ember Core isn't supporting it, though they say anyone should be able to get it set up with a custom addon. I'm also trying to use the 'testem' runner to see what sticks with that.
The Ember site does have an 'automating tests with runners' page for v1.10, with sections on 'testem' and 'karma', but it doesn't appear for v1.11 so I can't tell from that site what is or isn't relevant. But it seems like I should be able to work out a solution for the karma test runner, so I added the old devDependencies to the project package.json:
"karma": "^0.12.31",
"karma-chai": "~0.1.0",
"karma-chrome-launcher": "~0.1.2",
"karma-coverage": "~0.2.1",
"karma-firefox-launcher": "~0.1.3",
"karma-junit-reporter": "~0.2.1",
"karma-mocha": "~0.1.3",
"karma-phantomjs-launcher": "~0.1.2",
"karma-sinon-chai": "~0.1.5"
I also dropped the old 'karma.conf.js' (along with a few other karma confs) in the project and updated the paths inside (from 'vendor' to 'bower_components'). I did find a 'ember-cli-karma' node mode and installed it, but it seems to just have a 'package.json'. It has no docs and seems like just a stubbed out starter project with no implementation. I also installed 'karma', 'karma-cli' and 'testem' node modules.
The testem docs say to add you src and test files to 'testem.json', but with out examples I don't know what that means; a list of every src and test file? With what path; relative, absolute? Forward slashes, backslashes? preceded with / or ./ or ../? I just left them out because I think the system just finds the src and tests by convention.
When I run 'karma init' I get:
readline.js:529
this.line = this.line.slice(this.cursor);
^
TypeError: Cannot read property 'slice' of undefined
When I run 'testem' I get:
TEST'EM 'SCRIPTS!
Open the URL below in a browser to connect.
http://localhost:7357/aN;0faN;NaNf
...then the project's '../tests/index.html' loads in a browser, but is not able to 'find' any of the asset files (css, js) so nothing executes or renders correctly. I just see template expressions ({{content-for 'head'}}, etc).
When I run 'ember test' I get:
Building...BuildingBuilding.Building..Building...Built project successfully.
1..0
# tests 0
# pass 0
# fail 0
# ok
No tests were run, please check whether any errors occurred in the page (ember test --server) and ensure that you have a test launcher (e.g. PhantomJS) enabled.
When I run 'ember test --server' I get:
The test index.html loaded in a browser with a test report. When I uncheck 'hide passed tests' the report indicates '29 passed, 28 failed'. It has 11 sections where a particular test may have 3 problems such as 'could not load', 'failed', 'could not find module', 'attempting to register an unknown factory' or 'died'.
With this, I'm obviously running testem and not karma, so may as well work on getting testem working and figure out karma later. If there were more examples and migration troubleshooting docs I might have a systematic way to work through some of these problems.
I ran into "No tests were run,..." problem recently after a node upgrade. I fixed it with a:
npm install -g phantomjs
This provides some additional options as well:
https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-cli/issues/3969
I had the Cannot read property 'slice' of undefined error on MS Windows, running via MSys2. I have solved it by using karma init from an ordinary cmd prompt.
I have a project that uses "coffee-script": "^1.7.1" in its package.json.
The code has this line in it:
[{id: id, name: name}, ...] = result.rows
This compiles fine using coffeescript version 1.7.1
The problem is that I am trying to use mocha for unit tests and it gives me an error on this line:
Parse error on line xyz: Unexpected '...'
Apparently mocha uses an older coffeescript. Is there a way to make it work without adjusting the source for mocha?
EDIT:
my Gruntfile.coffee:
'use strict'
module.exports = ->
#initConfig
cafemocha:
src: ['test/*.coffee']
options:
reporter: 'spec'
ui: 'bdd'
coffee:
compile:
files:
'lib/mylib.js': ['src/*.coffee']
#loadNpmTasks 'grunt-cafe-mocha'
#loadNpmTasks 'grunt-contrib-coffee'
#registerTask 'default', ['coffee', 'cafemocha']
I added mocha.opts to the test directory:
--require coffee-script/register
--compilers coffee:coffee-script/register
--reporter spec
--ui bdd
but, still, when I run grunt, it gives me the same error. I am new to this environment, and I find it too complicated, please help.
Starting from version 1.7.x CoffeeScript compiler should be explicitly registered (see change log for version 1.7.0).
So, the problem is that CoffeeScript compiler is not registered when you're running your mocha tests, so node.js treats all your .coffee files as .js files.
The best possible solution is to specify --compilers option for your mocha tests:
--compilers coffee:coffee-script/register
If you don't want to include it to every mocha call, you could set it up using mocha.opts file.
Here are some useful links:
issue about it on github
reference in mocha docs
the reason behind this breaking change in CoffeeScript engine
Update
Looks like your issue is much deeper then I thought.
First, grunt-cafe-mocha doesn't respect mocha.opts because it's running tests by requireing mocha as a dependency, instead of calling mocha test runner.
So, it would've been enough to add require('coffee-script/register') to the top of your gruntfile, if not for this old grunt issue.
In short, grunt uses coffee-script 1.3.x, forcing all its tasks to use the same version of coffee. I had the same problem with grunt-contrib-connect, being unable to use latest coffee-script in my express app.
So, the only help I can offer you is a small grunt task I wrote to solve similar problem in one of my projects. It runs mocha in a separate child process, thus completely isolating it from grunt.
N.B. I had a thought about releasing this task to npm, but considered it too minor.
I'm having troubles to add test code coverage, I'm using Karma and files added to Karma are already bundled with browserify, so in karma.conf.coffee it looks like that:
files: [
{ pattern:'bin/public/client/app.js', served:yes: included:yes }
{ pattern:'src/lib/vendor/angular-mocks/angular-mocks.js', served:yes: included:yes }
{ pattern:'bin/tests.js', served:yes: included:no }
]
And that works for running the test, but not coverage
I'm using karma-coverage npm package, and this:
preprocessors: 'bin/public/client/app.js':['coverage']
reporters: ['progress','coverage']
Actually does create coverage stat files, but those are completely wrong, because it reddens parts that browserify brought from node_modules (because I don't have tests to cover those)
Ideally I have to gather source maps that browserify generates, and run coverage against those, but browserify embeds source maps into .js files. Using karma-sourcemap-loader lets me see original coffeescript files of tests, when debugging (for some reason it works only in ChromeCanary, nevertheless it works)
I tried to do preprocessors: 'src/client/**/*.coffee':['coverage'], but that yields no stats at all saying 'No data to display'
Do you have any ideas?
upd:
I've figured by running browserify-istanbul transform right after coffeeify and that gave me nice diagram like this:
Now, I need somehow to remove app.js from it, because really it doesn't matter and really confuses
upd:
Oh, instead of javascript I have to supply coffee files:
preprocessors : {
'bin/tests.js': ['sourcemap']
'src/client/**/*.coffee': ['coverage']
}
Seems I answered my own question. Also it seems there's a bug in current version of karma-coverage - it throws an error when coverageReporter.type is html (which is by default html). I'm glad I've figured it out. It's always nice to see how much code covered by tests
I want to use CoffeeScript for building what will essentially be a JavaScript library.
I would just like to be able to
define some classes, with inheritance
keep my code in several files
write some unit tests (QUnit or whatever works, preferably writing tests in CoffeeScript)
(ideally) have the project watched and built automatically while I work
This seems reasonable, no? My plan is just having the unit tests run against the compiled JavaScript, in a browser, although if I can run them straight in node.js that's even better.
Currently I'm trying to do this with CoffeeToaster and QUnit, using two different CoffeeToaster configurations, one with tests and one without. It is working, but perhaps somebody has a better suggestion? Should I ditch CoffeeToaster and do it with Cake? Or get another unit testing framework? Can anybody point me to a tutorial for this? I'm making a clientside JS lib, so I don't want to involve Rails etc.
I'm currently using:
Mocha as the test runner and should.js for assertions;
Mockery to intercept certain require calls for isolated testing with mocks/stubs of required libraries;
*JSCoverage for instrumenting the code for code coverage reports.
My code lives in src/ and I write my tests in CoffeeScript. I use make to build and test the code.
make build compiles the CoffeeScript in src/ to JavaScript in lib/.
make test builds the code and then runs the tests in test/.
make monitor watches and runs the tests as soon as they change. Unfortunately it doesn't recompile the code. I use a Vim keybinding to call make, which also triggers Mocha to re-run the tests.
Edit: If this bothers you, you could run coffee --watch -o lib/ -c src/.
make coverage generates a code coverage report and puts it in lib-cov/report.html.
My Makefile looks somewhat like this:
COFFEE = ./node_modules/.bin/coffee --compile
MOCHA = NODE_ENV=test ./node_modules/.bin/mocha
MOCHA_OPTS = \
--compilers coffee:coffee-script \
--require should \
--colors
REPORTER = spec
build:
#$(COFFEE) --output lib/ src/
test: build
#$(MOCHA) --reporter $(REPORTER) $(MOCHA_OPTS)
monitor:
#$(MOCHA) --reporter min $(MOCHA_OPTS) \
--watch --growl
coverage: instrument
#MYLIB_COV=1 $(MOCHA) $(MOCHA_OPTS) \
--reporter html-cov > lib-cov/report.html
instrument: build
#rm -rf ./lib-cov
#jscoverage ./lib ./lib-cov
.PHONY: build test monitor coverage instrument
You could probably use the above with very little modification.
To generate the coverage report with make coverage, the tests must be run against the instrumented code in lib-cov/ instead of the code in lib/. To make this possible, three things are needed:
The Makefile should set an environment variable, like MYLIB_COV (change the name as you like).
Your index.js should look at this environment variable and require either lib/ or lib-cov/ accordingly:
// index.js
module.exports = process.env.MYLIB_COV
? require('./lib-cov/mylib')
: require('./lib/mylib');
If you need exports from multiple source files, you can combine them here. If you have something other than index.js as 'main' in your package.json, don't forget to change it.
Your tests should require '../':
# test/test.user.coffee
describe 'User', ->
User = {}
before ->
{User} = require '../'
describe '#equals()', ->
describe 'when users have the same username and host', ->
it 'should return true', ->
user1 = new User 'user', 'some.host.foo'
user2 = new User 'user', 'some.host.foo'
user1.equals(user2).should.be.true
# etc.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out whether they need Mockery and how to use it if they do. I will point out, though, that the require call in the test snippet above is done inside before for a reason.
Happy coding!