Quoting Xavier (2020-12-04 16:18:58) > Le 04/12/2020 à 15:32, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Quoting Xavier (2020-12-04 11:48:58) > >> I'll study if node-babel7 can be split into multiple packages. It > >> took me around 4 hours to split jest correctly... > >> > >> Done for jest, waiting for ftpmaster review. > > > > Thanks! > > Note that I didn't succeed to split node-expect, it is really mixed > into other jest modules (!= node-expect.js). See (incomplete) > https://people.debian.org/~yadd/jest-spaghetti-dish.png. > > So I think using mocha+expect is a bad thing, prefer to use jest > directly (just to set test file paths: `jest --ci --testRegex > test/*.test-files.js`).
I see that a) src:node-jest embeds expect.js 26.6.2 hidden (i.e. without
providing it), and that b) src:node-expect.js contains expect.js 0.3.1.
I believe you when you say that it is bad, but I don't understand *what*
it is that is bad.
I guess that you are above saying that you tried to "unhide" the
embedded expect.js in src:jest but that was too complex to do.
Do I understand that correctly?
I don't understand what is complex about it: I would imagine that it
would be possible to either make a virtual package...
a1) build packages/expect/build/* using tsc
b1) install packages/expect/build/*
to /usr/share/nodejs/expect.js/build of binary package jest
c1) add line "Provides: expect.js (= 26.6.2)
to binary package jest
...or a real package:
a2) build packages/expect/build/* using tsc
b2) install packages/expect/build/*
to /usr/share/nodejs/expect.js/build of binary package expect.js
c2) add section to introduce new binary package expect.js
What am I missing or misunderstanding?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
