On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:54, Dao <d...@design-noir.de> wrote: > On 04.06.2014 11:45, Mike de Boer wrote: >> The reason CommonJS came into view was not because of it’s semantic >> superiority, but because of its similarity to both the XPCShell-test and >> Mochitest assertion styles and implementation. >> This way I thought we could circumvent ppl to get worried about re-inventing >> the wheel or something like that and view this change as an incremental step >> to gradually improve the blueprint overlap between the test suites in use. > > I don't understand. How does using CommonJS achieve this better than making > XPCShell use something based on the Mochitest API?
It doesn’t, per sé. Please understand that I’m not at all attached to _any_ API. I care only about pragmatic consistency across test suites we use for frontend development. If possible, across the board. As I tried to explain, the CommonJS API naively made sense to me at the time. To others as well, because we’re happily using it. As I now understand, some of us are very attached to a specific, different, API. I care only about the sanity of its implementation. The problems cited by James and echoed by Boris concerning `deepEqual()` are thusly most important to me[1]. Renaming `strictEqual` to `equal`, nuking `strictEqual` from orbit, is more than fine by me. Or we name it `is`. (As an aside, whilst maintaining my position of not caring about it, I don’t understand why ‘we’ like an ambiguous term `is` better than `equal`.) Mike. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1020875 _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
