Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 25, 2018. It is now read-only.

Added UMD wrapper #147

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

ChetHarrison
Copy link

I added the UMD wrapper so I could use backbonefire with my AMD project. It's on the "umd" branch. I tested by hand with RequireJS, CommonJS and Global implementations. I will write some tests for you next week but I thought I would check this in before the weekend hit. Happy Halloween. 😈

@googlebot
Copy link

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.


  • If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
  • If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

I signed it!

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

hmm looks like I didn't run the linter. Hang on.

@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

@davideast
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for sending in the PR and signing the CLA! Give me a day or two to do a quick review but it looks really good! As for tests, please send those in too when you have some time.

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

Hey thanks for the all your work on the lib. I love the Firebase and plan on using it on my current project so I needed the AMD support anyway.

I will get to the tests. They will take some thought because I will need to set up some environment to get them to run. For example you, thoughtfully, have Backbone in your Bower and I will need an additional copy in the Node mods so I can test for the existence of Backbone.Firebase from the runner. So weird messy stuff like that. That said I did test all three configurations by hand.

@mbrevda
Copy link

mbrevda commented May 11, 2016

@ChetHarrison were you able to get tests running for this?

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

Moshe,

Sorry I got distracted and it kinda fell off my plate. I’ll try and take a look at it again.

Thanks

Chet

On May 10, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Moshe Brevda notifications@github.com wrote:

@ChetHarrison https://github.com/ChetHarrison were you able to get tests running for this?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #147 (comment)

@mbrevda
Copy link

mbrevda commented May 12, 2016

It would be a huge help @ChetHarrison!

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

@mbrevda the quick fix is to grab my PR https://github.com/ChetHarrison/backbonefire. There is a lot of environment I need to think about in creating the common and amd tests that I am not a pro at but I think I can figure out. So If you are ok with that version I would get going with that while I address this.

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

actually now that I think about it this shouldn't be to hard

@mbrevda
Copy link

mbrevda commented May 13, 2016

I would have, but your branch is a bit out of date. Also, it would be good
to get official support.

On Fri, May 13, 2016, 6:56 AM Chet Harrison notifications@github.com
wrote:

actually now that I think about it this shouldn't be to hard


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#147 (comment)

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

yes I guess I did do it a while ago. They did want to add the PR but want the tests. I am working on them now.

On May 12, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Moshe Brevda notifications@github.com wrote:

I would have, but your branch is a bit out of date. Also, it would be good
to get official support.

On Fri, May 13, 2016, 6:56 AM Chet Harrison notifications@github.com
wrote:

actually now that I think about it this shouldn't be to hard


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#147 (comment)


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #147 (comment)

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

1 down 2 to go

On May 12, 2016, at 10:33 PM, Moshe Brevda notifications@github.com wrote:

I would have, but your branch is a bit out of date. Also, it would be good
to get official support.

On Fri, May 13, 2016, 6:56 AM Chet Harrison notifications@github.com
wrote:

actually now that I think about it this shouldn't be to hard


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#147 (comment)


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #147 (comment)

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

Ok I have some passing mocks but it's kinda cheating. I should pull some fixtures from actual module paradigms so we know if future changes to those paradigms break the tests. But much of this mod wars BS is going to sunset, thank what ever gods you like. So I think this may be a test suite.

It describes the conditions that are required to be present in order to branch to the appropriate module solution. Will PR soon.

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

done

@mbrevda
Copy link

mbrevda commented May 13, 2016

Thanks a ton @ChetHarrison! Would you want to merge the tests to the same branch as the PR?

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

@mbrevda I pushed my edits and tests to umd branch and PR'd

@ChetHarrison
Copy link
Author

but it looks like Travis is cool with it

@taseenb
Copy link

taseenb commented Oct 1, 2016

This PM looks approved, when is it going to be merged?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants