aldeed
commented
6 years ago @SimonSimCity I agree with all of that plan. For versioning the fork of core, Meteor allows you to use an underscore, so a common pattern is <wrapped_package_version>_<additional integer>. i.e. you could publish the one wrapping 5.2.0 as 5.2.0_1 and if you need to republish a change that doesn't change which mocha is wrapped, it would be 5.2.0_2. See the description for version option here: https://docs.meteor.com/api/packagejs.html#PackageNamespace-describe
SimonSimCity
In order to keep up with the latest version of MochaJS (and specially for the issue https://github.com/mochajs/mocha/issues/2095 which often ruined the report of my client-tests) I decided to take a look at how we could integrate its latest version.
As https://github.com/practicalmeteor/meteor-mocha-core seems to be abandoned (open PRs are left without any further notification for a long time), I've created a fork on this user (https://github.com/meteortesting/meteor-mocha-core). I first updated to MochaJS in version 3.5.3 and raised the version number to
1.0.1- MochaJS 4.x.x doesn't seem to support PhantomJS anymore - at least my tests failed (see: https://github.com/meteortesting/meteor-mocha-core/issues/1).Since the tests only failed in PhantomJS, and the owner of the project ~decided to~ has archive it (https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/issues/15344), I decided to move on and see how far I can get.
I went straight to version
5.2.0, which is the latest as of the time writing, and committed it as a proposal for a1.0.2which works great usingpuppeteeras browser, which is as easy to add as PhantomJS.Some ideas (some unresolved) still in my head where I want your opinion on:
1.0.0,1.0.1and1.0.2on atmosphere, so people could fix their project to e.g.1.0.1by locally requiring the package if they still need to support PhantomJS.