[ENHANCEMENT] Prevent addon generation in existing ember-cli project

[cbrock]

This fixes #3411.

This commit prevents addon generation if the current project is an existing ember-cli project.

Any thoughts or feedback are welcome.

[rwjblue]

Can you implement normalizeEntityName in the addon blueprint instead? Basically like: https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-cli/blob/master/blueprints/component/index.js#L33-L41

[rwjblue]

@cbrock - Any updates?

[cbrock]

@rwjblue I should have time this week to pick this back up and address your comment. I appreciate the feedback - thanks!

[cbrock]

@rwjblue I could use a little guidance on your previous comment.

My interpretation is that by implementing normalizeEntityName in the addon blueprint, we would throw if the current project is an ember-cli project, perhaps by importing lib/models/project and using isEmberCLIProject()?

I apologize for my ignorance, but I'm happy to implement the change if you're able to help me understand a bit better.

[cbrock]

@rwjblue I'd love to have another go at this. Any chance you could provide some clarification, per my comment above?

[rwjblue]

From the context of a blueprint instance, the project instance is set at this.project here just before normalizeEntityName is called here. That means that you can do something like the following:

normalizeEntityName: function() {
  if (this.project.isEmberCLIProject()) {
    throw new SilentError('You cannot run the addon blueprint from within an `ember-cli` project.');
  }
}

Then, we need to test the blueprints normalizeEntityName method (in a unit test) like the component blueprint tests here.

[cbrock]

@rwjblue Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

One thing to note, without actually returning entityName from normalizeEntityName, I was seeing Cannot call method 'replace' of undefined errors in the generate acceptance tests.

Because of that, I added a 'keeps existing behavior by calling Blueprint.normalizeEntityName' test, per the component blueprint test. Let me know if that should be handled differently (or not at all).

Again, thanks for the clarification!

[stefanpenner]

@rwjblue r?

[rwjblue]

AWESOME, thank you @cbrock!