What is bardjs?

[nareshbhatia]

Can you please explain the purpose of bardjs? It seems to me that following two are equivalent (one using bard and another without):

beforeEach(inject(function($controller, $q, $rootScope, 'dataservice') { }

beforeEach(function() {
    bard.inject('$controller', '$q', '$rootScope', 'dataservice');
});

[johnpapa]

It is actually more equivalent to this:

var $controller, 
  $rootScope, 
  $q, 
  dataservice;

beforeEach(inject(function(_$controller_, _$q_, _$rootScope_, _dataservice_) {
  $controller = _$controller_;
  $q = _$q_;
  $rootScope = _$rootScope_;
  dataservice = _dataservice_;
 }

afterEach(function() {
  $controller = null;
  $q = null;
  $rootScope = null;
  dataservice = null;
 }

[wardbell]

Well actually it is exactly like this:

beforeEach(inject(function($controller, $q,  $rootScope, dataservice) {
     window.$controller = $controller;
     window.$q = $q;
     window.$rootScope = $rootScope;
     window.dataservice = dataservice;
 }));

afterEach(function() {
    delete window.$controller;
    delete window.$q;
    delete window.$rootScope;
    delete window.dataservice;
});

Then your it test simply consumes these globals:

it('has a dataservice', function() {
    expect(dataservice).to.exist();
});

The objective is to eliminate the tedious variable definition and assignment statements that crowd the top of a describe block. All you do is write:

beforeEach(function(){bard.inject(function($controller, $q,  $rootScope, dataservice) {})});

or, if you prefer, this works too:

beforeEach(function(){bard.inject('$controller', '$q',  '$rootScope', 'dataservice')});

and after that one-liner you write your tests:

it('has a dataservice', function() {
    expect(dataservice).to.exist();
});

Of course you'd never pollute the global namespace in this fashion in production code. But it's harmless to do so in tests and there's no risk of cross-test pollution because the bard.inject cleans up after itself by laying down that afterEach.

_bard.js_ has other helpers too; it's not limited to inject.

[nareshbhatia]

Great explanation, @johnpapa and @wardbell. Sold on the usefulness of bardjs!

[wardbell]

Contemplating an extension. What do you all think?

I've long been bothered by the ceremony in

beforeEach(function (){ bard.inject(...); });

What if you had this sugar:

beforeEachInject(...);

Or

beforeEach.inject(...);

[johnpapa]

I like befor each separate. I may want other stuff in there.

John Papa

On Jan 20, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Ward Bell notifications@github.com wrote:

Contemplating an extension. What do you all think?

I've long been bothered by the ceremony in

beforeEach(function (){ bard.inject(...); }); What if you had this sugar:

beforeEachInject(...); Or

beforeEach.inject(...); — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[wardbell]

Let me clarify.

First, I'm proposing a sugar extension; you can still write it as you do today ... as we did way up above.

Second, both syntaxes support doing stuff in the body

When you pass a function to bardjs#inject, as in bard.inject(fn) the fn is executed in the same way that it would be if you passed it to ngMocks.inject. I don't think you lose anything. You gain less noise.

Is that gain worth adding an extension? That's my question.

[johnpapa]

meh

John Papa | @john_papa | JohnPapa.net, LLC

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Ward Bell notifications@github.com wrote:

Let me clarify.

First, I'm proposing a sugar extension; you can still write it as you do today ... as we did way up above.

Second, both syntaxes support doing stuff in the body

When you pass a function to bardjs#inject, as in bard.inject(fn) the fn is executed in the same way that it would be if you passed it to ngMocks.inject. I don't think you lose anything. You gain less noise.

Is that gain worth adding an extension? That's my question.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/johnpapa/gulp-patterns/issues/76#issuecomment-70695325 .