Switch from PhantomJS to Chrome launcher

[dmitriz]

Reasons against Phantom:

• Most serious: Tests passing in Phantom does not guarantee them passing in real browsers
• PhantomJS downloads its huge file into the node_module directory every time
• The installation breaks down on slow connections, and is not resumable without manual fixing
• Both npm and yarn do not clearly report the reason for delay is the PhantomJS installation, the user is left wondering what is going on
• The overhead is painful and inappropriate for quickly trying example like here
• The project does not seem to be as actively maintained with almost 2000K open issues
• There are more modern alternatives such as NightmareJS

Reasons for the Chrome launcher:

• No massive download needed, the locally installed browser is used
• Installation is quick and painless, no broken pipes
• 100% reliable: your tests run exactly in the same browser as used by your users

Need I say more? :)

[bendrucker]

If we're going to change the example I think it's worth going straight to recommending headless Chrome:

https://github.com/karma-runner/karma-chrome-launcher/pull/111

[bendrucker]

https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/04/headless-chrome

[bendrucker]

Perhaps it's a bit premature for this to be the documented example but a link would be a start. Otherwise this is a change from headless to windowed testing.

[nikku]

We'll do the switch as soon as headless Chrome is available on all platforms.

PhantomJS is dead, no big arguments required :wink:.

[nikku]

Closing this PR for now. We are happy to accept a headless Chrome PR, once it runs stable on all platforms (Mac, Windows, Linux).

[dmitriz]

@nikku

Why not a real browser that is already there and stable?

[bendrucker]

Well for one your example won't run in CI without xvfb

[nikku]

I'd say headless Chrome is a real browser :wink:.

In addition to Ben's comment headless browsers have the benefit of an improved, distraction free experience for the developer.

[dmitriz]

@bendrucker

Well for one your example won't run in CI without xvfb

Setting CI is a different story, with other issues to solve.

So indeed, more examples specifically targeted at CI integration would be great! But I would put them separately.

For instance, I am using the Firefox runner instead in my project here: https://github.com/dmitriz/min-karma/blob/master/.travis.yml

Which is also a real browser ;) And is perhaps even better for this and other reasons?

---

@nikku

I'd say headless Chrome is a real browser 😉.

I have no experience with it, but this does not sound good at all:

Caution: Headless mode is available on Mac and Linux in Chrome 59. Windows support is coming soon! To check what version of Chrome you have, open chrome://version.

So the questions to consider:

• Can I use it locally with my older OSX?
• Can I do with without any additional installation or downloads?
• Does it reliably mirror the complete modern browser functionality? In other words, is it guaranteed that all tests passed there will also pass in real users browsers, and vice versa.

If all of these questions are positively answered, I will be happy to switch today :)

If not, then using the current working runners supporting real user's browsers might be a better fit for the people coming to try this example?

PhantomJS is dead, no big arguments required 😉.

In that case, perhaps, it would be better to replace it, at least temporarily?

[ossdev07]

Ping @bendrucker @nikku

Since Chrome Headless is now available I have checked on my local machine by modifying the following files, to replace phantomjs with Chrome Headless:

1. Package.json
2. example/Package.json
3. example/karma.conf.js
4. test/integration/Karma.conf.js
5. test/spec/pluginSpec.js

It will be a delight to see phantomjs removed from the package If you agree I can raise a new PR with the changes for Chrome Headless support.

[nikku]

Please create the PR!