| ּ_בּ | |
| בּ_בּ | |
| טּ_טּ | |
| כּ‗כּ | |
| לּ_לּ | |
| מּ_מּ | |
| סּ_סּ | |
| תּ_תּ | |
| ٩(×̯×)۶ | |
| ٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶ |
On the Refinery29 Mobile Web Team, codenamed "Bicycle", all of our unit tests are written using Jasmine, an awesome BDD library written by Pivotal Labs. We recently switched how we set up data for tests from declaring and assigning to closures, to assigning properties to each test case's this object, and we've seen some awesome benefits from doing such.
Up until recently, a typical unit test for us looked something like this:
describe('views.Card', function() {
Hi Nicholas,
I saw you tweet about JSX yesterday. It seemed like the discussion devolved pretty quickly but I wanted to share our experience over the last year. I understand your concerns. I've made similar remarks about JSX. When we started using it Planning Center, I lead the charge to write React without it. I don't imagine I'd have much to say that you haven't considered but, if it's helpful, here's a pattern that changed my opinion:
The idea that "React is the V in MVC" is disingenuous. It's a good pitch but, for many of us, it feels like in invitation to repeat our history of coupled views. In practice, React is the V and the C. Dan Abramov describes the division as Smart and Dumb Components. At our office, we call them stateless and container components (view-controllers if we're Flux). The idea is pretty simple: components can'