2.0

[jefflembeck]

http://phantomjs.org/release-2.0.html

PhantomJS 2.0 was released last week. Any chance a new release is in the cards?

[nicks]

AFAIK, the phantomjs 2.0 release is not complete yet. We usually get a note from the phantomjs team when they're ready to roll new versions out more widely. For updates on the release process, see: https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12897

[jefflembeck]

Yeah, just saw that PR fail and why it did. Thank you!

[andrey-p]

It's officially out now. Official website has it ready to download.

[nicks]

We are still blocking on the release on linux binaries.

[nicks]

also, the current binaries appear to be completely busted on newer versions of OSX, though the discussion on this bug https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12630 suggest that this will be fixed before 2.0 is blessed.

[andrey-p]

That makes sense. Thanks for keeping on top of this!

[macbre]

https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12897 - Linux binaries are still missing

[nicks]

It looks like the PhantomJS team was not able to build working OSX and Linux binaries of version 2.0, and has decided to abandon them and try to fix this in 2.1.

Given that this package is supposed to be a platform-independent binary installer, this puts us in a difficult position. We can't release an NPM package that doesn't work. We will have to wait until 2.1.

https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12970

[kenips]

@nicks it's actually getting fixed in 2.0.1 not 2.1. See https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12948 and https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12902. So while it's sad that we don't get 2.0.0 goodness the wait won't be that long either :).

[kevin-smets]

Do you guys have any luck running the 2.0.0 on OSX (10.10.3)? When I run it, the output is simply this

[1] 3432 killed

Or any other process number... Any ideas?

[attila]

I installed phantomjs 2.0.0 via Homebrew and it works fine though I'm on OS X 10.10.2.

[kevin-smets]

Just installed via homebrew instead of using the standalone bin. The brew version works properly, the standalone does not appear to work at all. Thanks!

[jefflembeck]

I had success unpacking the downloadable binary with upx -d per https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12974

[phated]

Could travis-ci's linux binary be used https://github.com/travis-ci/travis-ci/issues/3225#issuecomment-76759322 ?

[stevenvachon]

Anything happening here?

[dtothefp]

@stevenvachon I have a fork that is working with 2.0 here https://github.com/dtothefp/phantomjs for OSX

[stevenvachon]

@dtothefp awesome, thanks!

[nicks]

I think we're still waiting on official binaries that work on more than one platform before we do an official npm release.

[nicks]

for those following along, it looks like there's been some recent progress on producing a statically linked binary on linux. yay! https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/12948

[itajaja]

still no progress?

[coltonbrugger]

Time for 2.0.1? 2.1? Anything?

[just-boris]

I have already installed proper phantomjs on my computer, but I see a message in console

> phantomjs@1.9.17 install /src/server/node_modules/karma-phantomjs-launcher/node_modules/phantomjs
> node install.js
PhantomJS detected, but wrong version 2.0.0 @ /usr/bin/phantomjs.

I don't want to deal with extra downloads. So I have to create a mock package which does nothing: https://github.com/just-boris/phantomjs It works nicely with karma-phantomjs-launcher which requires this module as peer dependency. No I have the following package.json

"karma-phantomjs-launcher": "^0.2.0",
"phantomjs": "just-boris/phantomjs",

and I so happy to use newest phantom

[ngryman]

Bump, 2.0 finally exposes Function#bind :v: I need this :)

[nicks]

gee, imagine how far along phantomjs would be if people spent as much energy contributing upstream as they spent whining!

[piuccio]

@nicks I generally agree, but honestly phantomjs 2 was released too early. I still don't get the rationale of releasing a new version that works only on 1/3 of the platforms.

There was no rush to release it. They should have waited a bit longer.

[lekoaf]

Like @ngryman, I'd also like the new PhantomJs for the Function.bind() reason in my project. Does anyone have a timeline on this? Thank you!

[Lochlan]

@ngryman @lekoaf just use a polyfill for Function.prototype.bind(). Add it to your actual project or load it only in your test runner, whatever makes sense for you.

[MarkLeMerise]

PhantomJS 2 also fixes an issue with Object.getOwnPropertyNames. At some point, using a bunch of polyfills gets cumbersome.

[Lochlan]

@MarkLeMerise is using polyfills more cumbersome than hacking together phantomjs 2 support as an npm dependency? I think the answer is definitely "no"--I would use polyfills (and I did, previously) but I need v2 to support the webdriverio 3 wdio test runner.

If you're like me and only need to support OS X and Ubuntu 14.04 binaries, and also need to use the "phantomjs" naming for peer dependencies to function correctly (unlike this project) I have a fork that will work for you, just use

"phantomjs": "git://github.com/Lochlan/phantomjs2.git#2.0.0",

in your package.json file. If you need travis support you can just add a few lines to your config, the key here is to make sure that the npm installer finds phantomjs "2.0.0" already installed.

As far as I can tell, forking this project seems to be the best solution for now.

[MarkLeMerise]

@Lochlan, I was about to update my comment to say that the "2.0.0-alpha" release of this package was working for me on OSX, but I use Jenkins as my CI env so I'll update with my findings.

UPDATE Looks like you have to build from source before using this package if you're using a Linux-y platform. For example, my Jenkins CI is running on CentOS.

[ngryman]

@Lochlan Yes I do use polyfills. It just feels awkward to use polyfills only for phantomjs and that you don't even need in production code (i.e. Function.bind is ie8).

[skysteve]

@ngryman not sure if you're able to, but I switched over to slimer JS (https://slimerjs.org/) because I wanted to use some ES6 features without having to pollyfill them. (As far as I know, anything that works in Firefox should work in slimer too).

(Sorry to post a "rival" "product" in here but lets be honest, phantom 2 was released too early and taking too long to address it's issues)

[ngryman]

@skysteve Thanks, will look into it :)

On a side note, this is nothing against phantomjs, I use it since its early release and it's a great tool! It's not about whining neither (/ref @nicks). It's about giving a perfectly valid feedback of a user, not a contributor, that needs this tool to evolve among our crazy Web ecosystem.

[rgbkrk]

How about now?

[Lochlan]

"How about now?" Has something changed recently that makes a difference with this issue?

[ghost]

PhantomJS 2 has windows binaries available. Not sure what the blocker is at the moment, but it's been almost 9 months.

[stevenvachon]

Update?

[jontroncoso]

I saw on the Downloads page it referenceing This Issue. On that ticket, it seams they are hard at work. So, hopefully They get past this roadblock soon. But also, if you check out the second to last comment it seams they are tired of people asking for updates.

Anyway, to the dev team thanks a lot for doing this! My experience with Phantomjs2 has been loads better so far! I almost want to donate some money to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...but I'm a cheapskate :(

[kolesnik]

upgrade?

[brunowego]

+1

[tregusti]

@Lochlan What is the reason not supporting windows in your fork? Installation fails quite hard.

[flesler]

I see there's a v2.0.0-alpha tag in here, will it download PhantomJS 2 if I npm install phantomjs@2.0.0-alpha ? Thanks, hope this can be solved soon

[just-boris]

@flesler nope. This tag was failed experiment. If you really want to use 2.0 version, just try another package, like: https://www.npmjs.com/package/phantomjs2 https://www.npmjs.com/package/phantomjs2.0 and others

[Lochlan]

@tregusti The reason I don't support Windows in my fork is that I don't have to support Windows machines, either at work or in my personal life. If you would like to add Windows support and open a pull request I will be happy to accept it, or you are of course free to make your own fork as well.

[darky]

:+1:

[Vanuan]

New tracking issue: ariya/phantomjs#13822 64-bit binaries produced so far.

[mikesherov]

@lochlan now that 64 bit binaries are out, and 32 bit binaries are just around the corner, can we expect phantomjs 2.0 support soon?

[Vanuan]

@mikesherov unfortunately, they are not out yet. They've just found a way to produce them on a sufficiently performant machine.

[mbrevda]

It seems the following was released. Is that what this issue has been waiting for?

phantomjs-2.1.0-linux-i686.tar.bz2
phantomjs-2.1.0-linux-x86_64.tar.bz2
phantomjs-2.1.0-macosx.zip

https://bitbucket.org/ariya/phantomjs/downloads

[Vanuan]

yay!