Switch to Istanbul for better test coverage#85
Switch to Istanbul for better test coverage#85BryanDonovan wants to merge 3 commits intophillro:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Why aren't pull requests like this being given attention? |
|
@freheneesz - I'm actively looking for another person to help maintain the On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:52 AM, fresheneesz notifications@github.comwrote:
|
|
We (the company I'm with) may want to help maintain this project if it'll move our work forward. What are you looking for in someone to help you maintain a project? |
|
Just someone good at node who is interested in keeping the library clean On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM, fresheneesz notifications@github.comwrote:
|
|
For what it's worth, I ended up writing another Elasticsearch client: https://github.com/BryanDonovan/node-simple-elasticsearch I mainly wrote it (instead of using this library or some of the other common ones like http://www.fullscale.co/elasticjs/ (which is just too complicated)) because I needed a simple method signature for all methods. In particular, a lot of methods node-elasticsearch-client have a lot of optional params, and I needed them to be simpler.. just one param (an args hash) and a callback. This was mostly make it compatible with a custom connection pool we use. The other reason is I wanted to be able to inject logger instance into the ES client (which my lib lets you do). But this looks to be good and actively maintained too: https://github.com/ncb000gt/node-es. I'm not sure, but I don't think I saw that when I was searching for libraries before :). Edit: We're using node-simple-elasticsearch at my company now and I don't see it going away anytime soon, so I'll maintain it. Even if I didn't maintain it, it exposes a generic 'request' function that lets you make any arbitrary HTTP request, so it's pretty easy to add new functionality to it yourself by wrapping that function in your own code. |
This pull request ditches jscoverage in favor of Istanbul, which is way better for test coverage reporting.