Switch to Node 4 #78
Switch to Node 4 #78
Conversation
|
@simonsmith awesome! I'll take a look this week |
|
@giuseppeg Think you can look today? I'm going to have some free time over the weekend so I'll get #72 sorted too and publish a new version |
|
hey @simonsmith sorry man I am afraid that I won't be able to look at it before the weekend. |
|
@giuseppeg Yeah, most of it was just put through |
|
In fact I can just work off this branch and merge later. So no worries |
| var exists = fs.existsSync; | ||
| var resolve = path.resolve; | ||
| var writeFileSync = fs.outputFileSync; | ||
| 'use strict'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I get an error saying to use const and let it has to be in strict mode.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe some eslint rule that we can remove?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error comes directly from Node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SyntaxError: Block-scoped declarations (let, const, function, class) not yet supported outside strict mode
at exports.runInThisContext (vm.js:53:16)
An odd limitation I didn't know about but I guess we should be running in strict anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same, it seems that we could pass --use_strict to mocha or node but shrug lets keep "use strict"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose we couldn't be sure it would be run that way by users. I noticed stylelint add it so probably wise to follow suit 👍
| const reporter = require('postcss-reporter'); | ||
| const stylelint = require('stylelint'); | ||
| const stylelintConfigSuit = require('stylelint-config-suitcss'); | ||
| let postcss = require('postcss'); // eslint-disable-line prefer-const |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is just so the rewire library can override it in the tests
test/encapsulation/browser.js
Outdated
| const test = require('tape-css')(require('tape')); | ||
| const styles = require('../fixtures/encapsulation.out.css'); | ||
|
|
||
| const dom = ((() => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the additional expression to wrap the iife is probably unnecessary (() => {})() should be enough
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah okay, just a copy paste from lebab. Will update
Fixes #75
Fixes #75