Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

drop HTMLCov and JSONCov reporters #2356

Closed
boneskull opened this issue Jul 5, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

drop HTMLCov and JSONCov reporters #2356

boneskull opened this issue Jul 5, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels
type: chore generally involving deps, tooling, configuration, etc.
Milestone

Comments

@boneskull
Copy link
Member

I mentioned this in Gitter, but both of these reporters leverage node-jscoverage, which is old and busted. It's my suspicion that these two reporters are rarely--if ever--used by anyone. Better coverage options exist in the form of istanbul, nyc, etc.

Furthermore, the only reason we have a dependency on jade/pug is these reporters.

I would like to drop them completely for v3.0.0, and remove the jade/pug dependency.

If anyone out there uses either of these reporters, please let us know!

cc @mochajs/core

@boneskull boneskull added status: waiting for author waiting on response from OP - more information needed type: chore generally involving deps, tooling, configuration, etc. labels Jul 5, 2016
@boneskull boneskull added this to the v3.0.0 milestone Jul 5, 2016
@boneskull boneskull mentioned this issue Jul 5, 2016
4 tasks
@dasilvacontin
Copy link
Contributor

Reporter usage statistics? :)

@boneskull
Copy link
Member Author

Well, we won't know until we break it and someone tells us, but it is a major.

@boneskull boneskull removed the status: waiting for author waiting on response from OP - more information needed label Jul 7, 2016
@boneskull
Copy link
Member Author

closed via b47835b in v3.0.0 branch

@ScottFreeCode
Copy link
Contributor

A bit late, but my 2¢'s worth:

  • Using reporters that require a specific coverage tool does not scale well. Having a standard format for coverage to be output and (a) reporter(s) that use(s) said format, so we're not limited to specific coverage tools, would be far more maintainable.
  • If there are adequate coverage tools that work with Mocha without a special Mocha reporter needed at all, then a reporter's not really a necessity.
  • Mocha can take third-party reporters if I'm not mistaken, so if anybody wants/needs Mocha reporters that include coverage (including the existing ones), we/they can just package them separately.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: chore generally involving deps, tooling, configuration, etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants