Install phantomjs locally

[mattrobenolt]

I don't know if there was a specific need for having phantom installed globally, but this works just great and is more explicit and inclusive.

[mattrobenolt]

Actually, disregard this. It won't work after it's installed by npm because the directory structure changes up.

Any ideas on a potential solution for this? I prefer not installing modules globally, and would rather not have a library assume that it is.

[metaskills]

It was my understanding that as long as phantomjs is in your path, it should work. For instance, assume you install PhantomJS as a project based npm and your $PATH has something like ./node_modules/.bin in it, then this should all just work. Same goes for the mocha-phantomjs bin right?

[mattrobenolt]

That is correct, but by default, ./node_modules/.bin is not on $PATH and I
don't know anyone who adds it. Convention is to use the path to the binary
automatically so you don't have to mess around with $PATH.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2012, at 7:46, Ken Collins notifications@github.com wrote:

It was my understanding that as long as phantomjs is in your path, it
should work. For instance, assume you install PhantomJS as a project based
npm and your $PATH has something like ./node_modules/.bin in it, then this
should all just work. Same goes for the mocha-phantomjs bin right?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/32#issuecomment-11528761.

[metaskills]

I can hear what you are saying, but when I first started learning how to use node and npm packages, especially within projects that may have different dependencies, the internet is full of recommendations that your path should have that in it. Which mine does all the time, it has no impact on my shell otherwise and allows me to know that when I type $ cake test within the mocha-phantomjs directory, it is using the cake bin installed by npm blessed by the project and not the system cake.

[mattrobenolt]

Let me come to some conclusion that works for everyone. ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2012, at 7:55, Ken Collins notifications@github.com wrote:

I can hear what you are saying, but when I first started learning how to
use node and npm packages, especially within projects that may have
different dependencies, the internet is full of recommendations that your
path should have that in it. Which mine does all the time, it has no impact
on my shell otherwise and allows me to know that when I type $ cake
testwithin the mocha-phantomjs directory, it is using the cake bin
installed by
npm blessed by the project and not the system cake.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/32#issuecomment-11529007.

[metaskills]

Cool thanks. Right now in my head I love your point of view, but it seems to only apply for requires, not binary execution. Would love to se how this works if it can and learn a bit more.

[mattrobenolt]

@metaskills Take a look at my last commit. This seems to catch everything.

If we switch to adding phantomjs as a dependency from package.json, which is how it should be in the first place, we can guarantee that it's sitting in some node_modules directory somewhere. So we can search across module.paths until we find it.

What do you think?

[metaskills]

Would this still work if this line was not here?

[mattrobenolt]

I don't believe so, off hand. But I can check in a bit.

Is there a reason that you're opposed to not actually depending on
phantomjs? Seems like you'd want to declare it, but maybe I'm missing why.

Are you expecting that the end user supplies their own version of phantom
so they can choose? If so, that makes sense.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2012, at 9:56, Ken Collins notifications@github.com wrote:

In package.json:

@@ -12,7 +12,8 @@
"scripts": {"test": "cake test"},
"dependencies": {
"mocha": ">= 1.4.x",

• "commander": "~ 1.0.5"
• "commander": "~ 1.0.5",
• "phantomjs": "~ 0.2.3"

Would this still work if this line was not here?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/32/files#r2464058.

[metaskills]

Are you expecting that the end user supplies their own version of phantom so they can choose?

Yes, that is what I was thinking. The phantomjs npm does not seem to follow the same semver as PhantomJS does, so keeping it loosely coupled would help. Thanks! I'll round back to merging this later tonight too.

[mattrobenolt]

Ok, this appears to be solid. It'll fetch a local phantomjs install if found first, and fall back to the global system wide phantomjs.

I don't know why the tests failed though. It seems they are a hit-or-miss in Travis?

[metaskills]

No, I just merged this and everything failed. Will investigate...

[metaskills]

OK, so I came up with a fix with 28ecde7 and just pushed out v1.1.2. Hope this helps!

[mattrobenolt]

Perfect! Thanks. :)

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 19, 2012, at 18:33, Ken Collins notifications@github.com wrote:

OK, so I came up with a fix with
28ecde728ecde7dand
just pushed out v1.1.2. Hope this helps!

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/32#issuecomment-11553890.