The Most Popular Articles of the Year

I suspect there may be a bunch of blog posts around the Internet that wrap up the year. Here are the most popular articles on my blog for the year:

React with ES6 and JSX

In fifth place, I did a series of articles on working with ECMAScript 2015 and React/Flux, working on getting a typical application working. I also poked into some stage0 proposals for ECMAScript7. I really enjoy working with React, but I’m torn between Custom Elements (and Polymer specifically) and React. Custom Elements are more standard – React is more popular. I’ll be revisiting this again next year (which is in 24 hours, but I’ll likely take longer than that).

Aurelia – a new framework for ES6

In fourth place, people were interested in how I would do my test tutorial with Aurelia. Aurelia is a really interesting framework and I prefer it over Ember and Angular. The learning curve is relatively small, although I will have to revisit the whole framework discussion as Angular 2 and Ember next-gen are coming out. This tutorial included using authentication with Auth0 and accessing remote resources.

ASP.NET MVC6 and Bootstrap

A one-off article on adding Bootstrap to ASP.NET MVC6 applications came in third place. There are other Bootstrap posts that are also interesting, including one that got made into a video.

Talking of ASP.NET MVC6

With the next revision of ASP.NET imminent, I took several strolls through the alpha and beta releases of that framework. There is a lot to like about it and a lot that is familiar. I’ve mostly switched over to a NodeJS environment now, so I’m not expecting to do much more in this area, but it is a much nicer environment that the old ASP.NET.

And finally, Visual Studio Tooling!

Fueled in large part by a link from the ASP.NET Community Articles page, the #1 page for the year was an article I wrote that described the Web Development extensions I used in Visual Studio. It also generated the most discussion with lots of people telling me about their favorite extensions. I’m using Visual Studio Code more these days – it’s lighter weight. I still love this list though.

Next Year

2015 was definitely the year that frameworks changed – In .NET land we got a look at the next revision of the ASP.NET framework, and in JavaScript land we got Aurelia, React, Flux, Relay, Angular-2, ES2015, Web Components, and several new versions of Node. I hope the framework releases calm down in 2016 so we can start sorting out the good from the bad and ugly. I’m going to take new looks at all this and work on my side projects. I hope you will continue the journey with me.

Browser Testing with PhantomJS and Mocha – Part 1

If you have been following along for the past couple of weeks, you will know that I’ve been writing a browser library recently. I’m writing the library in ES2015 and then transpiling it into UMD.

A sidebar on bugs in BabelJS
I did bump into a bug when transpiling into the UMD module format. The bug is pretty much across the module transforms, and manifests as a ‘Maximum Call Stack Exceeded’ error with _typeof. The bug is T6777. There is a workaround, which is to add a typeof undefined; line at the top of your library.

Back to the problem at hand. I’ve already used Mocha to test my library and I use mocks to attempt to exercise the code, but at some point you have to run it in a browser. There are two steps to this. The first is to set up a test system that runs in a browser, and the second is to run the test system through a headless browser so it can be automated. Let’s tackle the first step today.

My library is a client library to access a remote AJAX environment. I want the library to use either a provided URL or the URL the page was loaded from – whichever is appropriate. As a result, I need to load the files over the Internet – loading from a file:// URL isn’t good enough. To handle this, I’m going to:

  • Create a local test server
  • Load the files into a static service area
  • Run the pages in a browser

To this end, I’ve got a Gulp task that builds my server:

var gulp = require('gulp'),
    babel = require('gulp-babel'),
    concat = require('gulp-concat'),
    sourcemaps = require('gulp-sourcemaps'),
    config = require('../configuration');

module.exports = exports = function() {
    return gulp.src(config.source.files)

I store my gulp tasks in a separate file – one file per task. I then require the file in the main Gulpfile.js:

var gulp = require('gulp');

gulp.task('build', require('./gulp/tasks/build'));

I now have a MyLibrary.js file and a file in the dist directory. Building the server area is just as easy:

var gulp = require('gulp'),
    config = require('../configuration');

// Builds the server.rootdir up to service test files
module.exports = exports = function() {
    return gulp.src(config.test.server.files)

My configuration.js exposes a list of files like this:

module.exports = exports = {
    source: {
        files: [ 'src/**/*.js' ]
    destination: {
        directory: 'dist'
    test: {
        mocha: [ 'test/**/*.js' ],
        server: {
            files: [
            port: 3000,
            rootdir: 'www'

Take a look at the test.server.files object. That contains three distinct sections – the browser test files (more on those in a moment), the library files under test and the testing libraries. You should already have these installed, but if you don’t, you can install them:

npm install --save-dev mocha chai

I will have a www directory with all the files I need in it once I run the gulp buildserver command. Next, I need a server. I use ExpressJS for this. First off, install ExpressJS:

npm install --save-dev express

Note that this is a dev install – not a production install, hence the use of the --save-dev tag. I want express listed in devDependencies. Now, on to the server code, which I place in testserver.js:

var express = require('express'),
    config = require('./gulp/configuration');

var app = express();
app.listen(config.test.server.port || 3000, function() {'Listening for connections');

This is about the most basic configuration for an ExpressJS server you can get. I’m serving static pages from the area I’ve built. That’s enough of infrastructure – now, how about running tests? I’ve got two files in my files list that I have not written yet. The first is a test file called global-tests.js and the other is a HTML file that sets up the test run – called global.html. The global-tests.js is a pretty normal Mocha test suite:

/* global describe, it, chai, MyLibrary */
var expect = chai.expect;

describe('MyLibrary.Client - Global Browser Object', function () {
    it('should have an MyLibrary global object', function () {

    it('should have an MyLibrary.Client method', function () {

    it('should create a Client object when run in a browser', function () {
        var client = new MyLibrary.Client();

    it('should set the url appropriately', function () {
        var client = new MyLibrary.Client();

    it('should set the environment appropriately', function () {
        var client = new MyLibrary.Client();

There are a couple of changes. Firstly, this code is going to run in the browser, so you must write your tests for that environment. Secondly, it expects that the test framework is established already – it expects the chai library to be pre-loaded. One other thing is that this is a minimal test load. The majority of the testing is done inside my standard Mocha test run. As long as you have your tests exercise all paths within the code across the test suites (both the standard mocha tests and the browser tests), then you will be ok. I only test things that need the browser in order to test them.

The global.html test file sets up the tests, loads the appropriate libraries and then executes the tests:

<!DOCTYPE html>

    <title>Mocha Test File: Global Library Definition</title>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="mocha.css">

    <div id="mocha"></div>
    <script src="mocha.js"></script>
    <script src="chai.js"></script>
    <script src="MyLibrary.js"></script>
    <script src="global-tests.js"></script>


I’m intending on writing a test file that implements the global object version, AMD module definition and browserify to ensure that the library runs in all environments. Each environment will have it’s own HTML file and test suite file. I can include as many of these sets as I want.

Running the tests

Running the tests at this stage is a two-step process. First, you start the server:

node testserver.js

Secondly, you browse to http://localhost:3000/global.html – note the initiator for your test suite is the HTML file. If you have done everything properly, the tests will just work:


If things don’t work, you can use Developer Tools to figure out what is going on and correct the problem, then re-run the tests. Since this is an ES2015 project, there are some things that may require a polyfill. You can provide your own (mine only needs a polyfill for Object.assign – a matter for a couple of dozen lines of code), or you can use a major ES2015 polyfill like core.js – just ensure you load the polyfill in your test environment. This is also a great pointer to ensure your library has the right dependencies listed and that you have documented your requirements for the browser.

In the next article (Happy New Year!) I will integrate this into automated testing so that you don’t have to open a browser to do this task.

An ECMAScript 6, CommonJS and RequireJS Project

I’ve been writing a lot of CommonJS code recently – the sort that you would include in Node projects on the server side. I’ve recently had a thought that I would like to do a browser-side project. However, how do you produce a browser library that can be consumed by everyone?

The different styles of modules

Let’s say I have a class Client(). If I were operating in Node or Browserify, I’d do something like this:

var Client = require('my-client-package');

var myclient = new Client();

This is called CommonJS format. I like it – it’s nice and clean. However, that’s not the only way to potentially consume the library. You can also bring it in with RequireJS:

define(['Client'], function(Client) {
    var myclient = new Client();


Finally, you could also register the variable as a global and bring it in with a script HTML tag:

<script src="node_modules/my-client-package/index.js"></script>
    var client = new Client();

You can find a really good writeup of the differences between CommonJS and AMD in an article by Addy Osmani.

Three different techniques. If we were being honest, they are all valid and have their place, although you might have your favorite technique. As a library developer, I want to support the widest range of JavaScript developers which means supporting three different styles of code. This brings me to UMD format. I named it “Ugly Module Definition”, and you can see why when you look at the code:

(function (root, factory) {
    if (typeof define === 'function' && define.amd) {
        // AMD. Register as an anonymous module.
        define(['b'], function (b) {
            return (root.returnExportsGlobal = factory(b));
    } else if (typeof module === 'object' && module.exports) {
        // Node. Does not work with strict CommonJS, but
        // only CommonJS-like enviroments that support module.exports,
        // like Node.
        module.exports = factory(require('b'));
    } else {
        // Browser globals
        root.returnExportsGlobal = factory(root.b);
}(this, function (b) {
    // Use b in some fashion

    return {// Your exported interface };

Seriously, could this code be any uglier? I like writing my code in ECMAScript 2015, also known as ES6. So, can I write a class in ES6 and then transpile it to the right format? Further, can I set up a project that has everything I need to test the library? It turns out I can. Here is how I did it.

Project Setup

These days, I tend to create a directory for my project, put some stuff in it and then push it up to a newly created GitHub repository. I’m going to assume you have already created a GitHub user and then created a GitHub repository called ‘my-project’. Let’s get started:

mkdir my-project
cd my-project
git init
git remote add origin
npm init --yes
git add package.json
git commit -m "First Commit"
git push -u origin master

Perhaps unshockingly, I have a PowerShell script for this functionality since I do it so often. All I have to do is remember to check in things along the way now and push the repository to GitHub at the end of my work.

My Code

I keep my code in the src directory, The tests are in the test directory. The distribution file is in the dist directory. Let’s start with looking at my src/Client.js code:

export default class Client {
    constructor(options = {}) {

Pretty simple, right? The point of this is not to concentrate on code – it’s about the build process. I’ve also got a test in the test/Client.js file:

/* global describe, it */

// Testing Library Functions
import { expect } from 'chai';

// Objects under test
import Client from '../src/Client';

describe('Client.js', () => {
    describe('constructor', () => {
        it('should return a Client object', () => {
            let client = new Client();

I like to use Mocha and Chai for my tests, so this is written with that combination in mind. Note the global comment on the first line – that prevents Visual Studio Code from putting green squiggles underneath the mocha globals.

Build Modules

I decided some time along the way that I won’t use gulp or grunt unless I have to. In this case, I don’t have to. My toolset includes:

Let’s take a look at my package.json:

    "name": "my-project",
    "version": "0.1.0",
    "description": "A client library written in ES6",
    "main": "dist/Client.js",
    "scripts": {
        "pretest": "eslint src test",
        "test": "mocha",
        "build": "babel src --out-file dist/Client.js --source-maps"
    "keywords": [
    "author": "Adrian Hall <>",
    "license": "MIT",
    "devDependencies": {
        "babel-cli": "^6.3.17",
        "babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-umd": "^6.3.13",
        "babel-preset-es2015": "^6.3.13",
        "babel-register": "^6.3.13",
        "chai": "^3.4.1",
        "eslint": "^1.10.3",
        "mocha": "^2.3.4"
    "babel": {
        "presets": [
        "plugins": [

A couple of regions need to be discussed here. Firstly, I’ve got two basic npm commands I can run:

  • npm test will run the tests
  • npm run build will build the client library

I’ve got a bunch of devDependencies to implement this build system. Also note the “babel” section – this is what would normally go in the .babelrc – you can also place it in your package.json file.

The real secret sauce here is the build script. This uses a module transform to create a UMD format library from your ES6 code. You don’t even have to worry about reading that ES5 code – it’s ugly, but it works.

Editor Files

I use Visual Studio Code, so I need a jsconfig.json file in the root of my project:

    "compilerOptions": {
        "target": "ES6"

This tells Visual Studio Code to use ES6 syntax. I’m hopeful the necessity of this will go away soon. I’m hoping that I’m not the only one who is contributing to this repository. Collaboration is great, but you want to set things up so that people coming newly in to the project can get started with your coding style straight away. I include a .editorconfig file as well:

root = true

charset = utf-8
indent_style = space
indent_size = 4
end_of_line = lf
insert_final_newline = true
trim_trailing_whitespace = true

insert_final_newline = false

You can read about editorconfig files on their site. This file is used by a wide variety of editors – if your editor is on the list, you should also install the plugin.

ESLint Configuration

I have a .eslintrc.js file at the root of the project. I’ve got that in a gist since it is so big and I just cut and paste it into the root directory.

Test Configuration

My test directory is different – it expects to operate within mocha, so I need an override to tell eslint that this is all about mocha. Here is the test/.eslintrc file:

module.exports = exports = {
    "env": {
        "es6": true,
        "mocha": true

I also need a mocha.opts file to tell mocha that the tests are written in ES6 format:

--compilers js:babel-register

Wrapping up

You will need a dist directory. I place a file in there that describes the three use cases for the library – CommonJS, AMD and globals. That file is really only there to ensure the dist directory exists when you clone the repository.

I also need to add a at the root of the project. It’s required if I intend to publish the project to the NPM repository. Basic instructions on how to install and use the library is de rigeur, but you can put whatever you want in there in reality.

I have not addressed jsdoc yet – you should be doing it in your source files, and it should be a postbuild step in your package.json file.

You can now run the tests and build through the npm commands and get a library that can be used across the board.

Logging to Splunk with Winston

I have to admit, I’ve still got a soft spot for Splunk in my heart. I spent several years developing apps there and it is still my go-to logging platform. Recently, I’ve been playing with ExpressJS and using Winston as my logger of choice, together with express-winston to hook the two pieces up. My projects inevitably start with this:

var express = require('express'),
    winston = require('winston'),
    expressLogger = require('express-winston');

var app = express();

    transports: [
        new winston.transports.Console()
    level: 'debug'

// Do other setup here
app.listen(process.env.PORT || 3000);

This is all well and good, but what about Splunk? My prior version of this wrote the log to a file and then Splunk would consume the file. However, I’m operating inside of Azure App Service these days and my Splunk instance is operating on a different machine – it’s a virtual machine inside of Azure. So what am I to do?

Splunk recognized this and so they produced a high-performance HTTP event collector. This is a REST endpoint that allows you to submit data as long as you have a token. I’m not going to explain how to get a token (Splunk does a really good job of that). However, I need to handle the other side of things – the Winston transport.

Fortunately, Winston has a highly extensible transport system and I’ve done just that. You can download the module from or get it from my GitHub repository.

So, how do you use it? It doesn’t require Express, but I’m going to alter my prior example to show how easy it is. Note the highlighted lines:

var express = require('express'),
    winston = require('winston'),
    SplunkStreamEvent = require('winston-splunk-httplogger'),
    expressLogger = require('express-winston');

var app = express();

var splunkSettings = {
    host: 'my-splunk-host',

    transports: [
        new winston.transports.Console(),
        new SplunkStreamEvent({ splunk: splunkSettings });
    level: 'debug'

// Do other setup here
app.listen(process.env.PORT || 3000);


  1. Line 3 brings in the library – standard Node module management here
  2. Lines 8-11 define the options for the splunk-logging library
  3. Line 16 adds the transport to winston for logging

It’s as simple as that. There is one proviso. Underneath, it uses the excellent splunk-logging library. Winston expects that you send off each event individually. It doesn’t really stream events. As a result, setting any of the options in such a way that batching occurs will result in weird errors. That’s because Winston is expecting a callback for each event and the splunk-logging library doesn’t call the callback unless it actually writes to the channel. I haven’t done any high capacity tests to see what happens when batching does occur, so I’d avoid that for now.

If you find any bugs or wish to ask a question, please let me know through the GitHub Repository.

Working with Azure App Service: Kudu

I’m taking a break from coding to explain about a little known feature of the Azure App Service – Kudu. You can consider Kudu to be a backend system that alows you to get down to the very basics of what is happening behind the scenes of the portal. For instance, all web sites in Azure App Service are stored in a git repository. Want to know about that git repository? Kudu is your friend.

Getting to Kudu is straight forward. Firstly, log into the Azure Portal and enter your web app. Go to the Tools area, then Kudu, then click on Go:


You will get a rather simple site with no polish. I’m pretty sure that is deliberate. You don’t come to Kudu unless you want low level information, so the Kudu design reflects that.

Today I had a basic question – what branch is my continuous deployment hooked up to? Back on the portal, I know the project that it is linked up to, but it was set up so long ago that I’d forgotten what branch I needed to merge into. That information is not available in the portal directly. I could, of course, create a new branch in my GitHub project and then publish it, but that would mean disconnecting the SCM connection and re-establishing it.

Fortunately, that information is in the App Settings, available through Kudu, but it’s displayed in JSON. Also fortunately, I’m using JSONView for Chrome. This extension will pretty print any JSON document for you. From the Kudu site, go to App Settings, and you will get something similar to this:


As you can see, the branch that my continuous deployment is listed as the last item in this case.

There are a bunch of other things I absolutely love about Kudu. In the Debug Console menu drop-down is a “PowerShell” option – this opens a PowerShell prompt on your web app and allows you to explore the filesystem and the environment with all the power of PowerShell. Under the Environment menu, you get to see all the environmental information that your web site sees. Previously, I had written a small NodeJS application to view this information, not realizing that Azure had provided a tool already. A warning about this – the SQL passwords are shown in plain text here, so don’t just cut and paste this information. Want to stream the logs from your website? That’s available under the Tools menu option.

Short version: If you are developing for Azure App Service, you owe it to yourself to understand what Kudu offers and spend some time learning this powerful system.

Naming Exceptions in NodeJS

In my last post I started testing my new configuration SDK. My initial code was very simple boilerplate:

/// <reference path="../typings/node/node.d.ts" />
/// <reference path="IConfigurationSource.ts" />

import path = require('path');

import { IConfigurationSource } from './IConfigurationSource';
import { InvalidOperationError, NotImplementedError } from './Exceptions';

export default class JsonConfigurationSource implements IConfigurationSource {
    private location: string;

    constructor(location: string) {
        this.location = path.resolve(location);
        throw new NotImplementedError();

    get name(): string {
        return 'JSON';

    set name(v: string) {
        throw new InvalidOperationError();

    get id(): string {
        return `JSON-${this.location}`;

    set id(v: string) {
        throw new InvalidOperationError();

    toObject(): Object {
        throw new NotImplementedError();

I have implemented a few new errors in a separate file called Exceptions.ts:

/// <reference path="../typings/node/node.d.ts" />

export class InvalidOperationError extends Error {
    constructor() {
        super('Invalid Operation');

export class NotImplementedError extends Error {
    constructor() {
        super('Not Implemented');

The theory being that I can tell the difference between something that isn’t implemented and something that is broken. They both inherit from the standard NodeJS Error class. So far so good. What’s the problem? Well, it’s in the tests:


That assertion error isn’t really helpful. Basically, “error – we were expecting an error, but we got an error”. That’s because I have not renamed the error object. There are three properties on the Error object: message, name and stack. I am setting the message property when I call the super() in the constructor. What I am seeing in the display is the name property.

Note that I can still tell the difference between an InvalidOperationError and a NotImplementedError (and any other sort of error) by using the instanceof operator. This is about display only and the only place this really matters is in testing and log files.

The solution to this is relatively simple – set a name:

/// <reference path="../typings/node/node.d.ts" />

export class InvalidOperationError extends Error {
    constructor() {
        super('Invalid Operation');

    name: string = 'InvalidOperationError';

export class NotImplementedError extends Error {
    constructor() {
        super('Not Implemented');

    name: string = 'NotImplementedError';

Once this is in place, the failed tests now show the proper error:


The big take away here is to understand the classes you are sub-classing. Make sure you set the proper properties to provide appropriate debug messages.

Testing a NodeJS Library with Mocha and Chai

I’ve asserted before that I am not a “professional developer” partly because I don’t test. There are three things in testing that are important – a willingness to put in the time to learn a test framework, the writing of the tests and the adoption of a testing methodology. Today, I’m going to do all three for my latest project – a configuration framework for NodeJS that I am writing.

Testing Methodologies

Let’s start with the adoption of a testing methodology. One could write the code and then write some unit tests that test that code to make you feel good about releasing the library. It’s not really a methodology.

Test Driven Development is the first of the methodologies I can discuss. In TDD, you write the tests first – based on what the code is meant to do. This requires a level of design, of course. You get to write code that your library should run. Then you continually write code until all the tests pass. You are pretty well guaranteed to have 100% test coverage because you are coding against the tests. Once the tests pass, the code is complete.

TDD does fall down in a couple of areas – most notably where state comes into play. TDD is not a good fit for UI testing, for example. In the case of a library, your API is a contract – it either passes or fails. If you have enough tests to describe the API fully, then you’ve got a good test suite. In the land of UI development, however, there are corner cases. What if a user does something unexpected? One could assert that the UI is also a contract between a user and the program, but there are lots of things that can happen; including device differences, environment differences and so on that make this not so straight forward an answer.

BDD (which is Behaviour Driven Development) is a similar methodology but describes behaviours, not unit tests. For example, in my configuration example – TDD would test each method; BDD would test the act of producing a valid configuration.

There are other tests that you should consider aside from unit tests. You should definitely do some tests that are end-to-end (normally abbreviated as E2E). In my example, I want to support a set of common patterns for producing configurations, so I definitely want to test those situations.

Choice: TDD – the writing of unit tests and some E2E tests for the common patterns.

Testing Toolsets

This brings us to testing tools. In the NodeJS world, there are choices. I often got stuck on the implementation details of tests and that caused me to spin, eventually leading me to dropping testing because I just couldn’t decide. In general, you need to decide on two pieces – an assertion library and a test runner. Based on my prior research, I decided on Mocha and Chai. Mocha is the test runner and Chai is the assertion library. There is good information on each website, so I’m not going to go into detail. Instead I’m going to focus on setting up testing on my project.

Writing Tests

I’m using TypeScript and Visual Studio to generate all my code for this library I am writing. In my previous post, I set up the project and loaded it into Visual Studio. Today, my first step is to create a folder called test. Since I have the Node Tools for Visual Studio installed, I can write-click on the tests folder and select Add > New Item… There is a Mocha UnitTest File as an option under Node.js in both a JavaScript and TypeScript variety. I like to be able to run my build process without compilation, so my library is written in TypeScript, but the Gulpfile and unit tests are written in JavaScript:


I have not included Mocha or Chai in my project. Since I am in Visual Studio, I can expand the npm view in my Solution Explorer, right-click on the dev node and select Install new npm packages…


Searching for Mocha and Chai is enough:


One of the neat things about this is the warning it gives you on Windows:


Yes, you want to run npm dedupe. Fortunately, npm3 will get rid of this annoyance, but it isn’t the default release yet. Back to the test file. I’ve got a class – Configuration – that I want to test. It has a number of methods that I also want to test individually. Each method will have a number of tests associated with it. I’ve created a configuration.js on the test directory. Mocha will run all of the JavaScript files in the test directory by default. Here is my initial code:

var expect = require('chai').expect,
    Source = require('../dist/Source');

describe('Source', function () {
    describe('.keys()', function () {
        // Tests for the Source.keys() method

    describe('.type', function () {
        // Tests for the Source.type property

    describe('.location', function () {
        // Tests for the Source.location property

    describe('.get()', function () {
        // Tests for the Source.get() method

The first line brings in the expect syntax from the Chai library. Chai supports three different syntax implementations – should, expect and assert. They are mostly similar but do have some minor implementation differences. I like the readability of expect so I’m going to use that. I also bring in my library under test. Finally, I describe the library of tests I am going to run – the outer describe says I am testing the Source class and the inner describes say I am testing a particular method. You can next as much as you want.

Writing the tests

Let’s take the type property. I try to think about the tests first. Here is my logic:

  • It is set by the constructor
  • It is read-only
  • It is a string

Here is my code:

    describe('.type', function () {
        it('should return a string', function (done) {
            var s = new Source('static');

        it('sould be the same as the constructor value', function (done) {
            var s = new Source('static');

        it('should be read-only', function (done) {
            var s = new Source('static');
            expect(function () { s.type = 'new-value'; }).toLocaleString.throw(Error);

I find these tests to be highly readable. Each test case is self-contained – you could run any of these tests by itself and not worry about the state of the test system.

Running Tests

Before running tests, you need to have mocha installed globally so you can run it:

npm install -g mocha

Now I need a stub of my eventual implementation:

class Source {
    constructor(type: string, filename?: string) {

    get type(): string {
        return null;

export = Source;

Running mocha gets me a whole bunch of errors, but look at the top of the output:


Now I can run mocha whenever I want. You will note that the stack trace from the assertion library is printed for each error. One of the things I like doing is working on “the next error” – you can do this easily with mocha -b:


Integrating into the Build Workflow

I want to integrate testing into my workflow. There are two things I want to do here:

  1. Run npm test to test the project
  2. Run Mocha as part of my Gulp standard pipeline

Adding npm test support is easy – just add a “test” entry to the “scripts” section of the package.json file:

  "scripts": {
    "test": "mocha"

Integrating into gulp is also easy. Use the gulp-mocha library:

gulp.task('build', ['compile'], function () {
    return gulp.src('./test/**/*.js', { read: false })
        .pipe(mocha({ reporter: 'spec' }));

Here, my compile task compiles my code into the distribution area, ready for testing and usage.

Wrap Up

I’ve said a few times in the past that I need to learn testing techniques. Mocha and Chai make it easy. Now all I have to do is ingrain testing into my development world – write tests first and then code to the test. At least I have the tools and workflow to do this task properly.