Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: betterwsh.js

Expand Messages
  • seank_com
    Cool! So there appears to be a need. I was only interested in knowing if there was a technical reason the wsh.js module didn t do this in the first place as
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 24, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Cool! So there appears to be a need. I was only interested in knowing if there was a technical reason the wsh.js module didn't do this in the first place as putting jslint in the build pipeline is the only way a large team can guarantee it gets used regularly

      SeanK.


      --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, dino chiesa <dpchiesa@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > A while ago, I noticed the same problems, and wrote something similar. Called it jslint-for-wsh. Posted it on this mailing list a few months ago.
      > Because I use emacs, I also wrote a jslint-for-wsh integration with emacs (including flymake).
      >
      > All available at http://code.google.com/p/jslint-for-wsh/downloads/list
      >
      > My version is different than Sean's, in that it will work either with a filename specified on the command line, or if no arguments are present, with STDIN.
      >
      > Not sure why, but I didn't get much feedback on it.
      >
      > -Dino
      >
      > ps: I also published info on jslint-for-wsh on the EmacsWiki, http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/FlymakeJavaScript#toc5 .
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
      > From: home@...
      > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:24:58 -0700
      > Subject: [jslint] betterwsh.js
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I've been working hard to come up to speed on JavaScript (the right way) and
      > I was delighted to find jslint and have been actively working on how I could
      > incorporate this into our automated build process as a quality gate for all
      > our javascript code. To that end I have discovered that the wsh.js module is
      > significantly less feature rich than the web version. specifically limiting
      > to one error before stopping and using stdin instead of reading source file
      > directly. To that end I hammered out the follow over the weekend and was
      > wondering if there was any reason why this might not be a betterwsh.js?
      >
      > (function () {
      > var i, j, e, filename, file, source, fso = new
      > ActiveXObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject");
      > if (WScript.Arguments.length > 0) {
      > for (i = 0; i < WScript.Arguments.length; i += 1) {
      > filename = WScript.Arguments(i);
      > if (fso.FileExists(filename)) {
      > file = fso.OpenTextFile(filename, 1, false, -2);
      > source = file.ReadAll();
      > if (!JSLINT(source, {})) {
      > for(j = 0; j < JSLINT.errors.length; j += 1) {
      > e = JSLINT.errors[j];
      > if (e && e.line) {
      > WScript.StdErr.WriteLine(filename + '(' + e.line
      > + ') : ' + e.reason);
      > }
      > }
      > WScript.Quit(1);
      > } else {
      > WScript.StdOut.WriteLine(filename);
      > WScript.Quit(0);
      > }
      > } else {
      > WScript.StdErr.WriteLine(filename + ' : File Not Found');
      > }
      > }
      > } else {
      > WScript.StdOut.WriteLine('jslint - Windows Scripting front end for
      > JSLint');
      > WScript.StdOut.WriteLine('Usage: jslint filename [filename] ...');
      > }
      > }());
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.