[Sugar-devel] Build breakage in sugar-web
Daniel Narvaez
dwnarvaez at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 13:08:49 EDT 2013
We should also consider that the amount of HTML in the toolkit is going to
be really minimal, so probably not worth spending a lot of time on linting
it...
Though if you can give a try to csslint and see if it's good enough, it
would probably be worth it.
To fix the build I think we should push the patch and disable HTML linting.
On Thursday, 29 August 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> 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>:
>> > 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
>
>
--
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130829/a629a40f/attachment.html>
More information about the Sugar-devel
mailing list