Open SirDarquan opened 6 years ago
Yeah, I did know that but I prefer being explicit about what's included in the testing set up. By being explicit, I feel like you remove ambiguity--however, if you think this is a significant issue, perhaps we can allow the custom config to fully override attributes via special attribute naming? So a normal custom config would be something like:
module.exports = {
plugins: ['my-karma-plugin']
};
But if you want to fully override the attribute (aka, no merge with the preset), you could do:
module.exports = {
'!plugins': ['karma-*']
};
Think of the leading !
being similar to the CSS !important
. This thought is just off-the-cuff, so I'm not sure how easy/viable it is right now
I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. I'm not totally set on the idea of changing it. I was just speaking to the time when I had my karma file setup perfectly before using angular-librarian and then once switching over not quite understanding why it didn't work. Karma itself tries to 'get out of the way' by preferring convention over configuration then angular-librarian says "No, Configuration is king!" I was only trying to help the tool get out of the way of development.
Also, I like the idea of providing a overriding mechanism, but not by changing known properties. I would think the idea is to allow a developer to create a karma config that just works. Tool writers should allow developers to work the way they want to, not force them to work a certain way.
So is this it? Are we not going to continue the discussion? If the ideas I present aren't aligning with your vision of how you believe the library should work, that's fine. But I'd like to know how to move forward and silence doesn't help that.
Hey, please don’t think I’m ignoring you—my life has been very busy & chaotic recently. I’ll try to get to this as soon as I can. Sorry. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:24 AM SirDarquan notifications@github.com wrote:
So is this it? Are we not going to continue the discussion? If the ideas I present aren't aligning with your vision of how you believe the library should work, that's fine. But I'd like to know how to move forward and silence doesn't help that.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gonzofish/angular-librarian/issues/95#issuecomment-366448253, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAYjrmN6B4cAQX1PirfhpG1qOCY44HUYks5tVu8agaJpZM4R4rEg .
I think I can agree to this, I'll remove the plugins
section and let users provide the configuration to do it explicitly--good suggestion! I can make this update and I'll close on the next release.
angular-librarian uses the 'plugins' property to define the plugins it needs to use for testing. Normally when testing with karma, the system will find anything in the node_modules folder that starts with karma- and make it part of the testing automatically. I think I see the problem you're trying to solve though. If the developer needs a custom plugin, they must add it to this array but if it doesn't exist, it'll require them to know all the pieces ngl uses so they can add a simple plugin.
I'm not sure if you know this but you can set the plugin array to be
plugins: ['karma-*']
, This would restore the original Karma setup and developers only need to npm install any karma plugin to begin using. If they have a custom plugin, they can still add it to the plugins array and will be merged like normal. Does this make sense? I can elaborate if needed.