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...<div> </div><div>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: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I agree that js-beautify is not good enough for HTML and CSS right now (and development seems sort of stalled).<div> </div><div>I would like to keep a bit of linting though... What do you think about these<div> </div><div><a href="https://github.com/stubbornella/csslint" target="_blank">https://github.com/stubbornella/csslint</a></div><div><a href="http://html5.validator.nu" target="_blank">http://html5.validator.nu</a></div> <div> </div><div>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: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">2013/8/29 Daniel Narvaez <<a>dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>>: > Hello, > > as discussed in irc, the karma tests are failing > > <a href="http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/80/steps/shell_2/logs/modules" target="_blank">http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/80/steps/shell_2/logs/modules</a> > > 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: <a href="http://fpaste.org/35806/77925831/" target="_blank">http://fpaste.org/35806/77925831/</a> 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 .. </blockquote></div></div> -- Daniel Narvaez </blockquote></div> -- Daniel Narvaez