Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update deps, fix test coverage, linting #1

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

zemccartney
Copy link

  • Updates slew of deps
  • Fix missing test coverage
  • General linting
  • Update travis node versions

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 24, 2020

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling 74a9b27 on maintenance-04-2020 into cccdbd8 on master.

@zemccartney
Copy link
Author

Note that this work doesn't include any sort of integration yet i.e. I didn't use this updated version in a project, confirming it still works as expected. Do we have a preferred way of running such a test?

@devinivy
Copy link
Contributor

I think the primary way to do that is to build locally then npm link it into a project.

@devinivy
Copy link
Contributor

You could also publish a beta then allow many folks to pull it into their project to test prior to a "latest" release (in npm tag speak). This looks great, by the way—thanks!

@zemccartney
Copy link
Author

🙏 thanks for checking this out!
and cool, dig both of those suggestions, I'll try to find time soon to try one/both out.

Probably should have asked this at the beginning, before doing this work 🤡 : What's the future of strange-auth?
I took a brief look at using the strangeluv user recipe as a base for an integration environment here, but of course realized it doesn't use strange-auth. Though it seems the gap between here and there is strange-middle-end compatibility; so more specifically, is the next step for strange-auth something like refactoring it to work more closely with strange-middle-end as a sort of plugin?

Clearly I'm way out of touch here; sorry for the flail. Thanks for all the help!

@devinivy
Copy link
Contributor

Oh no way, I think you are v much in touch 😏. I think strange-auth will look pretty different in the future. Half of strange-auth is allowing one to author an async action given just an async function: now that is all taken care of generically by strange-middle-end. I think you're dead on that strange-auth will look like a plugin, which in our case is a mod-creator (i.e. a function returning a strange-middle-end mod).

@zemccartney
Copy link
Author

🎩 🎩 🎩
thanks, bub! that all makes sense. so cool to think of authoring various state mgmt features as mod-creators, I can feel the time and boilerplate savings. mmm

@zemccartney
Copy link
Author

Closing since effectively blocked till we sort out strange-auth's next direction

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants