UMD tests #13843
UMD tests #13843
Conversation
|
Added Browserify tests. Not sure whether or not to include the |
|
I can't comment on all the changes at the moment but see #13842 (comment) |
|
@hnrch02 Please rebase; this currently has merge conflicts. |
|
Should be rebased now. I want to know if the level of hackyness is acceptable and if not how we could improve it. |
|
Rebased again, now that #13842 has been merged. |
| var footer = ' })\n\n' + | ||
| '}();\n' | ||
|
|
||
| return src.replace(umd, '').replace(footer, '}();\n') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should use RegExp.quote here?
Yeah, hacky indeed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would we need that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
process runs before each file is added to the concatenated output, so unless the UMD stuff is included twice in a source file, I don't see a problem.
|
I'll squash the commits once this is ready to merge. |
|
Also added the fix to concatenated files built using the customizer. |
|
So how are we gonna go about this? Will we revert the revert after 3.2 is released and work from there or are we moving the UMD stuff to a separate branch? |
|
Punting to v4 checklist. |
As suggested in #13811, here are tests/examples of using Bootstrap with RequireJS and Browserify. Both working with the concatenated file and using individual plugins is being demonstrated.
This also includes a fix for #13812, which removes the module definitions from the individual plugins and wraps them all in one big factory function. It's pretty hacky so I'd like to get feedback on it.
/cc @fat @cvrebert @XhmikosR