Android Platform Release Preparation (Cordova 9)

[erisu]

Platforms affected

android

What does this PR do?

This PR contains final preparations for the Cordova 9 release goals.

See Cordova 9 Release Plan.

• Remove unused promise-matchers dependency
• Bumped cordova-common@^3.1.0
• Bumped Dev Dependencies with ESLint Correction
  • eslint@^5.12.0
  • eslint-config-semistandard@^13.0.0
  • eslint-config-standard@^12.0.0
  • eslint-plugin-import@^2.14.0
  • eslint-plugin-node@^8.0.1
  • eslint-plugin-promise@^4.0.1
  • eslint-plugin-standard@^4.0.0
  • jasmine@^3.3.1
  • rewire@^4.0.1
• Updated Dependencies
  • elementtree@^0.1.7
  • nopt@^4.0.1
  • properties-parser@^0.3.1
• Replace istanbul dependency with nyc@^13.1.0
• package.json cleanup
  • Dropped npm-run-all

What testing has been done on this change?

• npm t
  • eslint
  • coverage (unit testing)
  • java unit test
• Travis CI
• AppVeyor
• Platform Add, Build and Run

  $ npx cordova@nightly create androidTest com.foobar.androidTest
  $ npx cordova@nightly platform add github:erisu/cordova-android\#cordova9-prep
  $ npx cordova@nightly run android
  $ npx cordova@nightly build android
  

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #612 into master will increase coverage by 2.48%.
The diff coverage is 81.81%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #612      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   62.21%   64.7%   +2.48%     
=========================================
  Files          17      18       +1     
  Lines        1993    1816     -177     
  Branches      371       0     -371     
=========================================
- Hits         1240    1175      -65     
+ Misses        753     641     -112

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
bin/templates/cordova/lib/prepare.js	36.67% <0%> (-4.92%)	⬇️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/device.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/AndroidManifest.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/Adb.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/emulator.js	89.62% <66.66%> (-0.3%)	⬇️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/build.js	26.01% <0%> (-2.45%)	⬇️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/AndroidProject.js	39.04% <0%> (-1.87%)	⬇️
bin/templates/cordova/lib/pluginHandlers.js	85.8% <0%> (-1.84%)	⬇️
...n/templates/cordova/lib/builders/ProjectBuilder.js	42.85% <0%> (-1.71%)	⬇️
... and 12 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f228d90...9b94641. Read the comment docs.

[brodycj]

Looks good in general, wondering why we should get rid of npm-run-all

[brodycj]

Why get rid of npm-run-all?

[erisu]

@brodybits
I didn't think it was necessary to keep for only one use case.

There were two cases, but I don't see why second case was actually needed. Since we ESLint the entire directory and it passed, I didn't see a reason to lint the folder again with applied ignore-pattern.

IF we still had a pattern matching requirement for the run-s or run-p and didn't have require order, maybe it would have been worth keeping.

In the end, I felt it became more of bloat-package since all it provided at this point was shorting one line by 10 chars.

run-s eslint unit-tests java-unit-tests e2e-tests

and

npm run eslint && npm run cover && npm run java-unit-tests

The package itself is 156kb in size but with all its dependencies it was about 2.4mb. Even though some of the sub-dependencies we may already have from other packages.

I felt it might be better to just cut/downsize.

If there is something I am missing, I can add it back but would also like to understand why.

[brodycj]

For dependencies I would be strongly in favor of this kind of a reduction. But for devDependencies which is build tooling I do not really see the benefit of getting rid of npm-run-all. Even if we would only use it once I can imagine it would be nice if we could use it in more tasks someday.

The main thing is that I personally find it nicer if we don't have to do a lot of shell things in package.json itself.

But I don't feel super strongly about one way or the other, leaving it up to your best judgement.

[brodycj]

Approved on my part.

While I would rather we keep npm-run-all script in devDependencies I don't want this to be a blocker.

[dpogue]

👍 from me