Replace Testacular with Testem

[davemo]

I've run into a few of the limitations with Testacular that people complain about, namely no ability to console.log and add debugger statements and use the web debugging tools front-end devs are already familiar with.

My recommendation is to replace Testacular with the much more capable Testem. Which supports debugger and console.log

I'll see what I can do about getting a pull request together to make this happen :)

[testdouble]

Awesome! Let's do it.

On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:58 PM, David Mosher notifications@github.com wrote:

I've run into a few of the limitations with Testacular that people complain
about, namely no ability to console.log and add debugger statements and use
the web debugging tools front-end devs are already familiar with.

My recommendation is to replace Testacular with the much more capable
Testem. Which supports debugger and console.loghttp://cl.ly/image/2v36112R283l

I'll see what I can do about getting a pull request together to make this
happen :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on
GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12.

[davemo]

Just wanted to post an update on this, I have a working branch with changes that can get this running but the Testem "GUI" overtakes the Grunt status output which is not ideal. Given the Testem GUI provides some pretty decent functionality and I've often found it desirable to disconnect the running of tests from the compiling of assets I'm wondering if it would just make more sense to disconnect the 'specs' grunt task from the main loop in Lineman and instead provide a

lineman specs

command that people could simply run in another tab and process.

Another note on this: regardless of my PATH wrangling on Windows I cannot get Testacular to find PhantomJS installations. Testem, on the other hand, works like a champ on Windows / Mac :)

Thoughts?

[testdouble]

I'm not morally opposed to the idea.

[davemo]

Fixed in e2cfe39