978952 - standup trival mocha / chai test page

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Hello (Loop) :: Client, defect)

Description

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

In order to unblock folks writing unit tests with the JS code on Loop front-end stuff, Niko and I paired this morning on a dummy test with Mocha and Chai.

The PR imports Mocha 1.17.1, and Chai 1.9.0.  They are unit-testing frameworks only, and won't be shipped as part of a product.  Both use MIT licenses:

https://github.com/visionmedia/mocha/blob/1.17.1/LICENSE
https://github.com/chaijs/chai/tree/1.9.0#license

so I'd be quite stunned if there were a problem from that point of view, and suggest we land on the master branch of Adam's fork of gecko-dev, and back it out if there's a problem.

Comment 1

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

Gerv, is there any special process we need to do when importing code like this?  The intent is that we want to hope to land this stuff on the master mozilla-central repo down the line a bit, and we're using this branch to flag potential issues before we do.

Comment 2

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

Attachment: Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/adamroach/gecko-dev/pull/4

Comment 3

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Not shipping + MIT-license == no problem.

Gerv

Comment 4

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

Pull request merged; not yet closing, as I've seen abr use [leave-open] on the other bugs, and I'm not sure what his logic is there.

Comment 5

[Adam Roach [:abr]]

(In reply to Dan Mosedale (:dmose) from comment #4)
> Pull request merged; not yet closing, as I've seen abr use [leave-open] on
> the other bugs, and I'm not sure what his logic is there.

Sorry; I try to indicate the reason for adding [leave-open] when I add it, although I may have missed it somewhere.

In any case, I think this can be closed now that it's landed.

For t-crossing and i-dotting purposes: in the future, please do a formal r?/r+ with someone before merging PRs into the tree we're using, even if they're just third-party files. If we plan to do a bulk landing of our tree on m-i in the future, I believe that we need to be able to truthfully claim that every file went through the same review process as it would have to land on the tree directly.

Comment 6

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

Comment on attachment 8384844 [details] [review]
Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/adamroach/gecko-dev/pull/4

Dan had got confused last night about the my review intentions. I've just reviewed the additional changes and they are fine. So post-landing r=Standard8.

Comment 7

[Dan Mosedale (:dmosedale, :dmose)]

Yeah, this was a mistake on my part; will catch in the future.

Comment 8

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/elm/rev/fb57135a3559

Comment 9

[Mark Banner (:standard8)]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/fb57135a3559

Comment 10

[u279076]

I don't think this needs QA before release. Please needinfo me to request specific testing.