Merge this small changes with the "/sandbox/rzr/abandonware/review/master" in order to release it as @abadonware/bleno on npm

[petersaints]

I have just tested the changes @rzr has made to bleno on the "sandbox/rzr/abandonware/review/master" branch. Everything worked fine for me under Node 10.15.0. I just made a couple of changes:

• I renamed the package from "bleno" to "@abandonware/bleno" so that it can be published without clashing with the original package and versioned it as 0.5.1-0 (I think that the scheme you're using)
• I also updated the dependencies to their latest versions.

As far as I'm concerned, I think you can publish it on npm. If anything else arises I'll push more changes.

[rzr]

May I suggest you to rebase on my sandbox branch add your changes and then rebase on master , then I can merge it.

Then feel free to apply for:
abandonware/noble#9

[petersaints]

I think that I have already did (mostly) what you asked. I'm not a Git expert.

Either way, please note that if you intend to publish it to npm you'll have to remove the ""private": true" option that I added to my fork.

I did that because I use npm update would give me an error when I try to update my projects that link to my local copy of bleno. It would try to find @abadonware/bleno on NPM, but it would obviously fail to find it.

[rzr]

Rebase is a great feature , If you're not familiar I can assist you to.

I can also make your task easier by picking the changes from your branch too.

Give a couple of hours and I do that

[rzr]

I updated master with some of your changes, feel free submit your serie over it (without merge),
BTW Is npm link better than renaming it to abandonware/bleno and publish it to npm ?

[petersaints]

Ok. But when you say submit my series over it, you mean a new pull request, right? Because I don't think I can change the branch I'm basing this pull request on ("/sandbox/rzr/abandonware/review/master") to master.

Regarding npm link vs publishing, I'm just using it as a local replacement for the package. I still think it may be useful to have the package available on npm. With npm link people would have to clone the repository to their on PCs in order to link to it. With a proper npm package they can just run npm install @abandonware/bleno.

[rzr]

Ok. But when you say submit my series over it, you mean a new pull request, right? Because I don't think I can change the branch I'm basing this pull request on ("/sandbox/rzr/abandonware/review/master") to master.
you can use

git remote add upstream https://github.com/abandonware/bleno
git fetch --all
git rebase -i remotes/upstream/master
then
git push --force origin

this PR will be updated automagicaly

Regarding npm link vs publishing, I'm just using it as a local replacement for the package. I still think it may be useful to have the package available on npm. With npm link people would have to clone the repository to their on PCs in order to link to it. With a proper npm package they can just run npm install @abandonware/bleno.

previous packages were uploaded to @abandonware org

see https://www.npmjs.com/~rzr

I think I will follow the same pattern, so you can drop the private:true flag

[petersaints]

Ok! I think I had already done what you asked using GitKraken (sometimes I use the GUI, sometimes CLI). But I went through all the steps again and it seems ok.

Yes, I think that it is a nice idea to have all noble related packages working with the Node 10 LTS under the @abandonware org.

I can't promise that I'm able to maintain and improve upon noble, bleno, node-bluetooth-hci-socket, etc., but I usually move to the latest Node LTS when it comes out and if something breaks again I will try to fix it and push my changes.

[rzr]

maybe do this in separate change if upstream want to pick this

[petersaints]

Sure. I'm reverting those changes.

However, do you want to keep the jshint fixes? Basically I added some missing commas and renamed two variables that were still in scope due to JavaScript's variable hoisting. Since jshint is being run as a pretest step "npm test" was failing. That triggered my OCD and I had to fix it! If you think those changes is something upstream may be interested in adopting I'll keep them, otherwise we can drop them.

[rzr]

check versions

[petersaints]

check versions

It should be Ok now. Just check this comment before proceeding: #1 (comment)

[rzr]

Any other change to suggest for next release ?

I am considering to pick:
noble#410

Relate-to: https://abandonware.github.io/

[petersaints]

I think it's fine and I had noticed the "Buffer constructor usage" warning but I hadn't look into it yet, so it's nice that someone else did it. That said, I think it's worth picking it up in order to keep "@abandonware/bleno" future proof. Node.js may remove the constructor altogether in a future release.

…

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:05 PM Philippe Coval ***@***.***> wrote: Any other change to suggest for next release ? I am considering to pick: noble#410 <noble#410> — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJochejRYOjug1pAlkDTWVl-F1Otuciks5vhKNFgaJpZM4ZlEs0> .

[rzr]

Sorry I made similar changes on master branch and released to:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/@abandonware/bleno/v/0.5.1-0

Please rebase and submit patches if needed