synced version

[jantimon]

Hi,

I would like to use your file inside grunt however this would have to be synchronous.
Could you please provide a version which uses fs.readFileSync ?

[pscheit]

hey did you know that grunt can be asynchronous?

[jantimon]

Thanks for your quick response.
Afaik it is only possible to have asynchronous tasks but not to have asynchronous Gruntfiles.
Or is this also possible?

[pscheit]

Okay, I thought you meant grunt task.

I would not prefer refactoring it to a synchronous version because the error handling had to be with exceptions then.

Maybe there is a better solution for you with using an asynchronous task to manage the requirejs config. What are you trying to accomplish?

[jantimon]

My gruntfile contains different tasks which build i18n files, css files, fonts and so on.
Now I would like to limit the source files to files which belong to the requirejs module in use.

So if you don't require moduleX/moduleX.js it would not include moduleX/moduleX.css
By now I am doing this with madge and a short helper script which evals the requirejs config.
However I would prefer dropping the eval and use your library instead

[pscheit]

okay I see.
Maybe it helps to put your code from the gruntfile.js into an asynchronous grunt task and use this task to configure and run the other tasks dynamically.

you can use grunt.config.set() and grunt.task.run() for this.

grunt.registerTask('dynamic-task', function() {
  var done = this.async();

  // use requirejs reading here
  configFile.read(function(err, config) {

   // var myDynamicConfig ...

    grunt.config.set('mytask.mytarget', myDynamicConfig);

    grunt.task.run('cucumberjs:run');
    done();
  });
});

or maybe as a last resort there a libraries that convert async calls into sync calls :)

[jantimon]

My idea was not to replace the asynchronous part but to add an additional synced version which uses fs.readSync instead of fs.read

I guess you would have to do some rewrites as you put it all in one big function instead of splitting it up into parts.

After all it was just a feature request - if you are not up to it that's okay.

[mrjoelkemp]

+1 for the sync api. I'm using this lib within a node tool that has no need to be async. In fact, it would be cleaner and more efficient for a sync api.

[pscheit]

okay guys, got me convinced.
give me some time

[pscheit]

i admit that changing the code to sync the tests become more clear as well. So thank you for the feedback. Please test it in production and give me feedback.

[mrjoelkemp]

Looks good! Loving it.

Thanks,
Joel

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Philipp Scheit notifications@github.com
wrote:

i admit that changing the code to sync the tests become more clear as
well. So thank you for the feedback. Please test it in production and give
me feedback.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1 (comment)
.