[08:32:37] <jzaefferer> QUnit meeting! Ping JamesMGreene leobalter Krinkle|detached (anyone else?)
[08:33:21] <leobalter> hey
[08:33:35] <jzaefferer> Also ping sfrisk_ since we might talk about CSS testing frameworks, regarding https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis/issues/25
[08:34:11] <leobalter> Where's Gibson?
[08:34:23] <jzaefferer> Not here!
[08:34:41] <jzaefferer> Looks like we haven't had a meeting in quite some time
[08:34:45] <jzaefferer> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13FbWhiFQ9gWQvB1Tm4QM_OC4me-ha2ujDWH5sdF7ueo/edit
[08:35:31] <leobalter> and we have some minor regressions to fix, found after releasing 1.16
[08:35:58] <jzaefferer> let's put the pre-2.0 milestone on those
[08:36:04] <sfrisk_> hi!
[08:36:06] <jzaefferer> or we create one for 1.16.1?
[08:36:07] <gibson042> hey, just got in
[08:36:59] <jzaefferer> hi sfrisk gibson042. If you have any concerns regarding QUnit, let us know.
[08:37:11] <sfrisk> Okay, sounds good
[08:37:44] <jzaefferer> leobalter: I created a 1.16.1 milestone, lets put regressions in there
[08:37:48] <leobalter> ok
[08:38:05] <jzaefferer> gibson042: what do you think about https://github.com/jquery/qunit/pull/714#issuecomment-67344384 ?
[08:38:28] <gibson042> I like it
[08:38:31] <gibson042> updating the PR now
[08:38:39] <jzaefferer> how so?
[08:38:44] <gibson042> oh, hang on
[08:38:46] <gibson042> wrong comment
[08:39:57] <gibson042> I'm going to end up with something similar to that (e.g., `conditionalTest( name, condition, fn )`)
[08:40:10] <gibson042> but it seems common enough and valuable enough to have a home in QUnit proper
[08:40:40] <gibson042> and fits with concepts on the original discussion around skipping from JamesMGreene
[08:41:30] <jzaefferer> Why not abstract the condition?
[08:43:14] <jzaefferer> Well, we can continue that discussion on the PR
[08:43:25] <gibson042> as in `testInIE9`? we'll probably have something like a dozen variable conditions, which IMO justifies full generalization
[08:43:26] <gibson042> ok
[08:43:41] <jzaefferer> leobalter gibson042: Does any of you happen to have experience with (unit) testing css or sass? Regarding https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis/issues/25
[08:44:44] <jzaefferer> gibson042: if all of those are only used once I can see why you want just one abstract method.
[08:46:02] <arschmitz> jzaefferer: I opened that issue just because when i was doing some reading on sass on the train those were a couple things i found people suggested
[08:46:18] <arschmitz> jzaefferer: it may not be something needed for chassis i just figured it was worth looking into
[08:47:08] <sfrisk> What arschmitz said
[08:48:25] <gibson042> I have no direct experience, but am agreeable to the concept
[08:48:40] <arschmitz> I think ill ping dam ( Kristofer Joseph ) on it if no one has any experience since he did a lot of work around testing for topcoat maybe he has looked into this
[08:49:05] <sfrisk> That sounds good
[08:50:03] <jzaefferer> yeah, would be nice to get some input from someone who looked into that before
[08:50:47] <sfrisk> Definitely.
[08:51:10] <leobalter> jzaefferer: a new unit testing book was released http://blog.jayfields.com/2014/12/working-effectively-with-unit-tests.html?spref=tw&m=1
[08:53:10] <jzaefferer> leobalter: thanks, I'll take a look
[08:53:27] <jzaefferer> I think thats all for today. I hope to see JamesMGreene around sometime soon, to continue work on js-reporters
[09:00:24] <scott_gonzalez> arschmitz: jzaefferer fnagel gnarf jperrault kborchers mikesherov rxaviers
[09:00:32] <fnagel> hey
[09:00:32] <arschmitz> Hi
[09:00:32] <jperrault> o/
[09:00:37] <rxaviers> hello
[09:00:49] <kborchers> hey
[09:01:54] <scott_gonzalez> dekajp sent a PR for one of the regressions: https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui/pull/1398
[09:02:22] <scott_gonzalez> I pointed him to spinner's precision logic to guide him.
[09:02:27] <scott_gonzalez> But I haven't had a chance to look at the PR yet.
[09:03:32] <scott_gonzalez> Looks like we can definitely optimize this a bit, but I'll look into it detail later.
[09:03:49] <scott_gonzalez> What's up with AMD in tests/demos?
[09:04:49] <rxaviers> I chatted with jzaefferer this week and the next step is to revert testsuite helpers AMDifcation.
[09:05:04] <rxaviers> we've*
[09:05:29] <mikesherov> hi
[09:05:37] <rxaviers> no resolutions so far
[09:06:23] <scott_gonzalez> Hey mikesherov.
[09:06:40] <scott_gonzalez> mikesherov, Have you had a chance to look at http://bugs.jqueryui.com/ticket/10590?
[09:11:15] <jzaefferer> meanwhile, arschmitz, how's the classes update going?
[09:11:24] <scott_gonzalez> Heh, I was just typing that :-P
[09:11:31] <mikesherov> scott_gonzalez: not yet
[09:11:37] <mikesherov> will do this week
[09:11:39] <mikesherov> I hate grid
[09:11:41] <arschmitz> Going keep finding more stuff to do
[09:11:44] <mikesherov> it makes me sad
[09:12:02] <arschmitz> like noticed all previous prs i had based all my work off included interactions
[09:12:20] <arschmitz> so started updating those this morning
[09:12:34] <arschmitz> oh but so every one knows
[09:12:48] <arschmitz> we decided on _addClass( elements, keys, extra )
[09:13:02] <arschmitz> but we will do autodestroy for classes
[09:13:28] <arschmitz> and all null nested option values will no longer be defined in the widget
[09:13:47] <arschmitz> and classes is switching from "" to null for anything with out a value
[09:14:01] <arschmitz> so this means most of the classes object definitions go away
[09:14:16] <arschmitz> and we will add _toggleClass
[09:15:01] <arschmitz> which will just be  _toggleClass( elements, keys, extra, bool )
[09:15:08] <arschmitz> and bool will be 100% REQUIRED
[09:16:11] <arschmitz> jzaefferer: scott_gonzalez: i think that covers everything we decided right?
[09:16:24] <scott_gonzalez> I think so.
[09:16:48] <arschmitz> and if you care about LOC this is a big win in terms of classes
[09:17:24] <arschmitz> between the definitions and destory we drop a LOT of lines from old implementation
[09:17:39] <scott_gonzalez> mikesherov's effects rewrite landed :-)
[09:17:46] <arschmitz> WOO!
[09:17:56] <scott_gonzalez> So that fixed a bunch of bugs.
[09:18:59] <scott_gonzalez> And just as exciting, Google finally transferred the PointerEvents polyfill :-)
[09:19:00] <scott_gonzalez> https://github.com/jquery/PointerEvents
[09:19:08] <scott_gonzalez> We'll be announcing that today on the jQuery blog.
[09:19:46] <arschmitz> OH MY GOD YES!!!
[09:20:20] <mikesherov> hooray
[09:20:29] <mikesherov> just in time for the PR announcement?
[09:20:32] <mikesherov> for pointer events?
[09:21:33] <scott_gonzalez> Yeah, so in related news PointerEvents became a Proposed Recommendation at the W3C yesterday.
[09:21:56] <arschmitz> YAY!
[09:22:05] <arschmitz> its a good week for pointer events
[09:22:12] <arschmitz> which is good one has been needed!
[09:22:19] <scott_gonzalez> IE is fully passing the W3C tests.
[09:22:43] <scott_gonzalez> And so is the Firefox implementation, but that's not available in all of their builds yet.
[09:23:24] <scott_gonzalez> So we'll be able to start making progress on the interaction rewrite with Pointer Events again.
[09:23:53] <arschmitz> i cant wait to pull into mobile
[09:23:58] <arschmitz> SO MANY THINGS FIXED
[09:25:09] <scott_gonzalez> Anyone have anything else to discuss today?
[09:27:25] <scott_gonzalez> Thanks everyone. See you back in -dev.