Support for 0.19

[mdgriffith]

Everything compiles and works under 0.19.

Some tests are failing because of interactions with the move from Test.Runner.getFailure to Test.Runner.getFailureReason.

[avh4]

Unnecessary comment can be removed?

[avh4]

@mdgriffith to clarify: were you planning to try getting the tests to pass before this PR is merged, or in a later PR, or were you planning to let someone else look into that?

[kofigumbs]

I had the same question as @avh4, but they beat me by 5 minutes 😄. The changes seem fine, but I'm hesitant to merge if it doesn't pass the suite.

[mdgriffith]

Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm planning on fixing the tests 😅 I just wanted to put the PR up so that there wasn't any duplication of work.

Update incoming.

[mdgriffith]

@avh4, @hkgumbs Ok, all tests pass now.

I also adjusted the formatting to account for Reason + description that's provided by getFailureReason.

[kofigumbs]

🎉 thanks @mdgriffith. I'm not sure if you had a chance to follow this Slack thread, but I think we're gonna pause on this for the time being. I should have asked that Slack question sooner — my apologies.

I think it makes sense to leave this PR open so that people can find the conversation link easily.

[mdgriffith]

No problem 😄 I did see that slack thread and it makes sense.

I actually don't use this package I was just updating it alongside a similar html test runner I have that's used for scrapping and testing style information. So, no worries!

[mikegehard]

@hkgumbs Looks like that Slack conversation got lost in the 10k message max limit for free Slack accounts. Any chance we could get a synopsis here?

I'm looking for a test running for Elm 0.19 and we are currently using this one. Just want to know how much time to spend looking for a replacement.

Thanks!

[kofigumbs]

@mikegehard good point, my apologies.

In 0.19 in prior, people adding tests via creating a new Elm project with its own elm-package.json file, typically under tests/. Now that 0.19 has a test-dependencies field in the main elm.json file, no separate project (or elm-package.json file) is needed. However, this also means that normal Elm packages, like html-test-runner, cannot access these test dependencies.

Since most people use the command-line runner anyway, I think we're going to circle back to this once that is released. Perhaps some of the work that's used there should be ported here as well. Or maybe this project gets folded into the NPM package. I'm not sure how it will shake out.

I want to make sure we understand your use case though. Why did you chose to use this project as opposed to the command-line runner?

[mikegehard]

Thanks for the thorough answer!

I wasn't on the project at the start but my understanding was that we didn't want a Node/NPM dependency on our CI machines.

Using the HTML runner/browser allowed us to do that.

I'm working on porting our very small test suite to the beta command line runner and will probably go with that since we want to get the 0.19 upgrade done quickly.

[fswalker]

Hello! Is this PR ready to be merged? Is some help/additional work required?

[avh4]

@fswalker everyone so far that was using html-test-runner in 0.18 has decided to switch to the console test runner in 0.19. For html-test-runner to get updated, someone will have to help update it for Elm 0.19. See the rest of the discussion above for reasons why it might not be easy to update it for Elm 0.19.

As far as I know, nobody is currently planning to work on updating html-test-runner for Elm 0.19.

[fswalker]

@avh4 Thank you for the explanation. Maybe it would make sense to add html test runner to the console runner project as an optional flag which generates elm file which can be seen via elm reactor? The thing is I would like to write and execute tests in Ellie (https://ellie-app.com/). Is there another way to achieve this?