[IPython-dev] bug in html notebook in latest version?

Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail....
Tue Oct 23 12:52:19 CDT 2012


On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Matthias BUSSONNIER
<bussonniermatthias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le 23 oct. 2012 à 18:42, Brian Granger a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Matthias BUSSONNIER
>> <bussonniermatthias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I hate to say this, b/c I'm not the one writing much JS code and I
>>>> don't want to sound like a grouch, but I'd like to ask everyone
>>>> working on JS to tackle the testing problem as a very high priority
>>>> question and to consider a moratorium on major new work until we sort
>>>> it out.  For years the old IPython codebase started without tests, and
>>>> that started to slowly paralize and kill the project.  Eventually we
>>>> bit the bullet and developed a  testing machinery that, while ugly at
>>>> the beginning, got us moving.  And over time, that machinery has
>>>> gradually gotten better and better, and today on the core code we
>>>> actually do have decent testing (not perfect, but not terrible
>>>> either).
>>>>
>>>> I am growing increasingly worried about more and more JS code without
>>>> tests and I fear we're going in the same direction here.
>>>>
>>>> I am NOT trying to slow down development or boss anyone around, but we
>>>> really need to take this problem seriously, or the whole project will
>>>> suffer.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> I think our current JS architecture is not designed for good testing.
>>> I'll will try to come up with an IPEP, but for the basic, we should:
>>>
>>> make use of `require` and have a more MVC approach.
>>> -> it will allow to have model testing on server-side with node for example.
>>
>> Do you have thoughts on the best implementation of "require"?
> I've heard of requireJS,
> and it ships with r.js that apparently allow to transform commonJS require to a more async requireJS form.
>
> I've never used it though.
>
>  I think that the commonJS
> x = require('…')
> is much more readable and understandable than the callback based one.
>
> In the long run, I think that having a 'dev' flag would be great.
> Without the dev flag all the JS/css/coffescript/... would be minified and in one file.
> and if you want to introspect, you activate the dev flag and everything is unmignified and readable.
>
> RequireJs Does allow that, which is a plus, even if it means adding a compile option to js.

OK thanks, I will try to have a look at these options.  Would  be nice
to improve this situation.

Cheers,

Brian
> --
> Matthias
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPython-dev mailing list
> IPython-dev@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/ipython-dev



-- 
Brian E. Granger
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
bgranger@calpoly.edu and ellisonbg@gmail.com


More information about the IPython-dev mailing list