Common, Blockchain: add browser tests

[emersonmacro]

Closes #1338

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1380 (0cb1b9b) into master (755c4a6) will increase coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Flag	Coverage Δ
block	86.06% <ø> (+0.15%)	⬆️
blockchain	83.49% <ø> (ø)
client	84.20% <ø> (+0.65%)	⬆️
common	93.02% <ø> (ø)
devp2p	83.56% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
ethash	82.83% <ø> (ø)
tx	88.24% <ø> (-0.12%)	⬇️
vm	79.32% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[emersonmacro]

@ryanio I took a stab at #1338. Build processes are definitely not my specialty - I got a setup working in common, but a similar setup is failing for blockchain. The files are there and it's entering the first test, but it gets stuck at this line and times out https://github.com/ethereumjs/ethereumjs-monorepo/blob/master/packages/blockchain/test/clique.spec.ts#L13. Wondering if either A) you might have an idea of why it's not working for the blockchain tests or B) maybe we just add browser tests for common now and handle blockchain separately. Or I guess C) I keep digging on why it's not working for blockchain. Any thoughts?

Also, I got a linting error on code I didn't touch - it was complaining that Partial was not defined. Have you seen that before? I added an ignore comment just so I could get this WIP PR up, but wouldn't want to merge that if there's a real fix available. https://github.com/ethereumjs/ethereumjs-monorepo/pull/1380/files#diff-970bb4d849f8275a7e4a4d17f71211e3a99fac7e27a9f3c0b826746287135ddbR169

[ryanio]

@emersonmacro thanks for getting started on this!

i am going to switch from browserify to karma-typescript since that is a more modern setup that doesn't require a build step. i will also convert block and tx from browserify to karma-typescript.

seems to all be passing for me locally, let's see how ci does.

[ryanio]

Also, I got a linting error on code I didn't touch - it was complaining that Partial was not defined. Have you seen that before? I added an ignore comment just so I could get this WIP PR up, but wouldn't want to merge that if there's a real fix available.

haven't seen that before, and didn't get any errors locally when i removed the newly added ignores for Partial, i will see if it catches on ci though.

[ryanio]

lgtm!

[emersonmacro]

@ryanio thanks!