Export Runner, not just its type.

[LucasSloan]

No description provided.

[NickTomlin]

This makes a lot of sense and opens up some different uses for runner.

An aside for my curiosity: what are you using this for? Protractor has had some requests for programmatic usage examples and improvements. If you have an open source example that may be of great boon to the docs.

[vikerman]

This was for a very specific use where we had to set the spec name in the browser capabilities and hence we wanted to override the implementation of createBrowser.

[sjelin]

I do not like this. The runner is not a public API and we shouldn't be encouraging people to hack it like this. If people are determined to do this kind of hack, they can use require('protractor/built/runner.js').Runner;.

The long term solution to @vikerman's problem is to have a plugin hook in createBrowser that allows people to modify the capabilities (#4230).

[heathkit]

@sjelin agreed, I think it would be better to keep runner private.

[NickTomlin]

I think I misunderstood the benefits here; my bad :(. I believe @sjelin and @heathkit are right on this. I love the idea of exposing more "building blocks" to external users but it would be best to do that with a crafted external API and not by just exposing the internals (as they stand) to the outside world.

@vikerman can we revert this and go with a require based reach into the internals as a short term solution while we eventually move towards the solution in #4230 ?