allow the use of api-stub for test:ci and test commands

[taras]

Currently, api-stub is only enabled on server and server:test commands.

It should work uniformly across all test tasks.

[rwjblue]

Looks like Karma supports proxies which should work, but we'll need to tweak the configuration to start the server before calling test:ci (I think):

  proxies =  {
    '/static': 'http://gstatic.com',
    '/web': 'http://localhost:9000'
  };

Config file documentation: http://karma-runner.github.io/0.8/config/configuration-file.html

[taras]

I started working on this. I encountered a hick up with configuration of Karma proxies. I'll create a PR with what I have later today or tomorrow morning.

[FilmKnurd]

I ended up modifying the grunt config to make the api-stub work across the board. I can submit a PR.

[taras]

@rjackson @stefanpenner the last commit - #f37c977 in my PR adds expressServer:debug task to test, test:ci and test:browsers.

This commit also remove also removes the ability to specify proxy method via command line.

IMO, that functionality should be either implemented differently or removed because it makes Gruntfile.js unreadable.

It nullifies #367.

[FilmKnurd]

@taras Agreed. My PR just added the existing command line helper into the other tasks. I like your refactoring.

[FilmKnurd]

@taras It looks like the reason @pangratz did not enable the stub for tests is because tests should fake the server: #336 (comment)

[taras]

@FilmKnurd thanks for the link, I thought that might have been the case but when using with stubs it creates a different scenario. I think its a matter of consistency and its either one away or another - ie. either we do stubs that we serve or fake server with mock content.

@stefanpenner might have something to say about this. He mentioned some reservations that he has about faking the server during in a hangout that happened a few weeks ago.

[FilmKnurd]

I've been using the stub for running the server during development and when deploying for demos. For tests, I've been using mockjax.

[FilmKnurd]

I suppose the nice thing about the current setup is that it gives you the option to opt-in to using the stub for tests. I think that was the intent behind @pangratz PR.

@taras Why does it have to be either / or?

[taras]

@FilmKnurd it doesn't have to be either/or but if we are going to enable both options then both should be complete.

This commit completes the stubs implementation.

Currently, EAK doesn't have anything to enable fake server setup. If we say that when testing you should use fake server then we should at least provide what's necessary to do that. ( i think )

[taras]

But I gotta say, I do like the idea of faking requests. I was using Trek's fakehr and ember-httpRespond library and that was very nice because it was very fast. The problem was that I had to manually load my static content.

I wouldn't mind doing a good integrating of fakehr & ember-httpRespond libraries into EAK.

[FilmKnurd]

@taras How would you compare the fakehr & ember-httpRespond to mockjax?

[FilmKnurd]

I think providing a solution for faking/mocking server requests is an excellent idea.