Inline runtime generation, fix test:browser

[zapu]

Added inline runtime generation with build:inline_runtime task. The runtime is generated to extras/inline-runtime.js and is used in nodes.coffee to emit IcedRuntime, if the option is set to inline or window.

This method, however, limits compilation capabilities of iced as browser library. Iced in browser will not be able to emit inline runtime, because there will be no inline-runtime.js text file anywhere. Compiling with runtime: none and letting it use runtime from iced global variable will work - and that's what test:browser Cake task does right now.

All tests pass, for both test and test:browser. Keep in mind that test:browser runs less tests, grep testingBrowser to see which test files are skipped.

[zapu]

So what are we doing with this one?

[zapu]

About require('fs') in browser - I think you removed the comment while I was typing the reply. It might be useful anyways:

That's correct, this would be a limitation of the compiler in browser for now. It wouldn't be able to compile code with runtime set to 'inline'. I don't really see a good way around it.

I tried to make the compiler "decompile" it's own runtime and emit it, but it led to nowhere. I can try this again if it sounds like a reasonable solution to you.

[maxtaco]

Here's an idea I had:

• In the cake build:inline-runtime step, output a lib/coffee-script/inline-runtime.js file that has the code from inline-runtime.js in a raw string
• Emit the raw string on compilation in inline mode, instead of reading the file off of the fs via require('fs'). So instead, something of the form:

inlineRuntime: (lefthand) ->
    inline_runtime = require('./inline-runtime).runtime
    "#{lefthand} = #{inline_runtime};"

[zapu]

OK, that was another idea that I've had before. I wasn't sure which one was better - decompiling or saving raw string. So I'll get to it later today.

[zapu]

Just for reference (and for other people interested, maybe), iced2 used to do this: https://github.com/maxtaco/coffee-script/blob/iced2/src/nodes.coffee#L3394 which was not ideal either.

[maxtaco]

(I editted my comment above, thank you @zapu!)

[maxtaco]

Indeed, the previous solution was bad for several reasons, especially because the code was different/worse and drifted further apart over time.

[zapu]

I added the commit, it's still pretty rough around the edges, but the tests pass and seems OK overall.

[zapu]

Changed this approach a little bit to be more lined up with your proposal, and removed irrelevant comments from this PR. Things are much cleaner right now.

I should also squash the commits before eventual merge.

[maxtaco]

Looking very good. Do you get all tests passing? I'm still seeing one failing (repl.coffee:69).

[maxtaco]

 node ./bin/cake test

failed 1 and passed 714 tests in 2.58 seconds 

  empty command evaluates to undefined 
  AssertionError: Expected undefined to equal iced> 
  at global.eq (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/Cakefile:363:14)
  at /Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/test/repl.coffee:69:3
  at Function.<anonymous> (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/test/repl.coffee:38:17)
  at global.test (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/Cakefile:287:12)
  at testRepl (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/test/repl.coffee:38:3)
  at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/test/repl.coffee:67:1)
  at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/test/repl.coffee:1:1)
  at Module._compile (module.js:409:26)
  at Object.exports.run (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/coffee-script.js:136:23)
  at runTests (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/Cakefile:412:22)
  at Object.action (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/Cakefile:429:12)
  at helpers.extend.invoke (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/cake.js:44:26)
  at Object.exports.run (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/cake.js:70:20)
  at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/max/src/iced/coffee-script/bin/cake:7:38)
  at Module._compile (module.js:409:26)
  at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:416:10)
  at Module.load (module.js:343:32)
  at Function.Module._load (module.js:300:12)
  at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:441:10)
  at startup (node.js:134:18)
  at node.js:962:3

  function () {
      return fn(input, output, repl);
    }

[zapu]

Hm, there was a change in behavior in node but I'm no longer seeing that. I tried to make this change in upstream (https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/pull/4120) but it wasn't accepted. What node version do you have? I'll try to find some time and dig through the changelogs.

Can you try something like this?

zapu@lab » node
> undefined
undefined
> console.log('hell')
hell
undefined
>
zapu@lab » node --version
v5.6.0

Also, what's with the versions? I guess their versioning changed after all the node.js/io.js things happened.

[maxtaco]

Ah, I'm running 4.3.2....

[zapu]

The correct way would be to detect repl settings (because I think you can change the undefined behavior) and make test check result according to this setting.

[maxtaco]

Well still broken for me on 5.10.1., but that's ok.

:+1: Ok, to merge!

[zapu]

Oh, cool! Thanks!

[maxtaco]

Thank you!