[Sugar-devel] Build breakage in sugar-web

[Daniel Narvaez]

I agree that js-beautify is not good enough for HTML and CSS right now (and
development seems sort of stalled).

I would like to keep a bit of linting though... What do you think about
these

https://github.com/stubbornella/csslint
http://html5.validator.nu

The second one requires Internet which is a bit bad for check, we could
probably skip the test if offline .

On Thursday, 29 August 2013, Manuel Quiñones wrote:

> 2013/8/29 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > as discussed in irc, the karma tests are failing
> >
> >
> http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/80/steps/shell_2/logs/modules
> >
> > The following fixes it for me
> >
> > diff --git a/test/karma.conf.js b/test/karma.conf.js
> > index f8fb3cc..7d48693 100644
> > --- a/test/karma.conf.js
> > +++ b/test/karma.conf.js
> > @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@ files = [
> >          pattern: 'lib/**/*.js',
> >          included: false
> >      }, {
> > +        pattern: 'graphics/*.html',
> > +        included: false
> > +    }, {
> >          pattern: '**/*js',
> >          exclude: 'test/**/*js',
> >          included: false
> > diff --git a/test/loader.js b/test/loader.js
> > index a6019bf..7c83cc9 100644
> > --- a/test/loader.js
> > +++ b/test/loader.js
> > @@ -8,7 +8,8 @@ requirejs.config({
> >
> >      paths: {
> >          "sugar-web": ".",
> > -        "mustache": "lib/mustache"
> > +        "mustache": "lib/mustache",
> > +        "text": "lib/text"
> >      },
> >
> >      // ask Require.js to load these files (all our tests)
>
> Thanks a lot Daniel.  My mistake was not running check.  Even if it
> takes a while, it must be done always before sending a pull request.
>
> > After that we run into another issue, js-beautify doesn't like
> > menupalette.html. I tend to think the templates should not be run through
> > js-beautify, they are not pure html... What about just renaming to
> > .mustache? I was actually uncertain if I should suggest that during the
> > review, maybe this is a good reason to do it.
>
> So js-beautify does this with the html:
>
> http://fpaste.org/35806/77925831/
>
> It feels wrong to me, being it a template or not.  I think js-beautify
> does a great job in js files, but for html and css it is doing more
> harm than good for us.  I can open a bug, but should't we consider
> disabling the check for html and css?.
>
> I dislike the idea of renaming the html suffix to mustache.  We'll
> lose syntax highlightning in editors and in github.
>
> --
> .. manuq ..
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130829/c6ec0806/attachment.html>