Use process.stdout.write to print the report

[SimenB]

Fixes #35

Testing it became quite hard, so ended up introducing logger option, which is provided a sinon mock from the test

[lazd]

Shouldn't that be console.log.bind(console)?

[SimenB]

You are absolutely right!

[lazd]

I'm not sure about writing to stdout directly, I think we should use gulp-util's log() method in order to be a good citizen...

Also, I wonder if we need to expose an option at all for the logger. For now, wouldn't it just make sense to call gutil.log()?

[SimenB]

gutil.log is just console.log with the time before it, isn't it? The whole point here is to not use console.log, as it adds a line break after each invocation. And joining the string apparently explodes if it's long enough

[lazd]

You're right, process.stdout must be the right thing to do. Giving an option for the logger lets folks do whatever they want with the output, so they can avoid printing to stdout if that's undesirable.

[SimenB]

I could maybe use gutil.log in the example in the readme instead of console.log?

A thing that just hit me, we could go the other way around, and have a big message saying "if you get RangeError: Invalid string length, use process.stdout" followed by an example. Then keep using gutil.log as the default

[lazd]

Yeah, showing gutil.log might be nice, as the [gulp] prefix and whatnot may be expected by some users. On the other hand, it may interfere with the report output. It's up to you on this one.

[SimenB]

@lazd How about now?

I also added an example if you want to print to file. I think this satisfies #34, and I'm closing it if this is acceptable.

[SimenB]

This small note could be removed when #29 comes in, dropping support for custom

[SimenB]

@lazd Thoughts?

[lazd]

Let's merge this now, then quickly get #29 together, then do a release. That way all the reporter stuff happens at the same time. Sounds right, @SimenB?

[SimenB]

Aye, sounds good

[SimenB]

@lazd Rebased this

[lazd]

@SimenB if we're good to go here, I can merge this. Do you want to do #29 immediately after and push a release or should we wait on that?

[SimenB]

This is done, yes.

Regarding @29 I'd like to get it done, but I'm quite busy the next couple of weeks, and won't be able to wrap it up until after that

[lazd]

Ok, I'll go ahead and merge/release this as a patch release.

[29]

Huh?

[lazd]

@29 sorry, I believe we meant #29 :)

[SimenB]

Oh yeah haha. Sorry about that!

[SimenB]

@lazd ping 😄

[lazd]

@SimenB sorry for the delay, merging now!

[lazd]

Released in 0.3.0!

[SimenB]

Sweet! I'll try to wrap up #29 ASAP then, and a 1.0 release should be GTG 😄

[lazd]

@SimenB awesome!