-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
run-browser is an unmaintained project #180
Comments
There's an issue where we were discussing setting it up on browserstack or similar. It was a non critical task and time consuming but not particularly demanding, so it was waiting for a volunteer. I'd follow through with that. But please share your thoughts if you have other ideas. |
Don’t fix what is not broken. |
@naugtur Will, you be interested in accepting a PR of PhantomJS replacement with puppeteer? |
I would - to avoid pulling PhantomJS binary on npm install. |
Hi @naugtur, I have successfully replaced PhantomJS with puppeteer, but not able raise pull request by forking https://github.com/naugtur/run-browser. As it is redirecting to the another run-browser which seems unmaintained . Could you please let me know how can I ship the changes so that you can merge it to be used by xhr. |
Puppeteer is a good project. Rewriting the tests to leverage puppeteer directly seems reasonable. |
Thanks for replying @Raynos I have sucessfully used puppeteer in xhr by modiying the run-browser, and all the test cases are passing, Please have a look at the logs:
Please do revert what else is required to be done from my end. |
Where can we look at your changes? At this point, if there's significant work on top of Puppeteer in there I suggest you release it under a new name (other than run-browser). I can help you out in the process. |
@naugtur These are the files which are modified in order to replace PhantomJS with puppeteer: In run-browser
In xhr
I am ready with the PR but not sure about the process to share the changes in your repository.
Yes, please share the process through which I can share the changes with you, if you agree I can share the changes in your repository itself https://github.com/naugtur/run-browser as I have only called puppeteer and the changes are very small. |
Before we proceed - how difficult in your opinion would it be to use pupeteer directly in xhr for tests to eliminate run-browser entirely? |
@naugtur I will look into it and get back to you shortly. |
I have done the analysis and looks like removing run-browser entirely will be a bigger task. In my view we should use run-browser. Please let me know your opinion on the same. |
I appreciate any contribution and while I think skipping run-browser would be simpler license-wise and more future proof, forking run-browser under a new name with puppeteer underneath is also a great move. Please share a link to your work or create a PR. I'll do my best to help out with releasing your work. Under your name, obviously. Let me know your opinions on that (to be clear, I'm not a maintainer of run-browser, I also forked it) |
@naugtur I have raised the pull request with the puppeteer changes in https://github.com/naugtur/run-browser, Please have a look and share your feedback. Also once you merge the pull request of run-browser naugtur/run-browser#1, I will raise another pull request for xhr as it will result in Travis-ci failures before it. |
Hello Team,
The dependency run-browser used by the xhr for testing the package is now unmaintained.
Further, the browser dependency used by run-browser is also out of date i.e the phantomjs browser.
I am curious to know that if anyone here has considered using a maintained alternative to run-browser for xhr.
Please do share your thoughts on this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: