| Summary: | Provide a .tern-project file for Orion client | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [ECD] Orion | Reporter: | Michael Rennie <Michael_Rennie> |
| Component: | JS Tools | Assignee: | Michael Rennie <Michael_Rennie> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | curtis.windatt.public, Silenio_Quarti, steve_northover |
| Version: | 10.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 11.0 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
we should probably also include: ecmaVersion: 5 since we do not have any es6 (or support ant es6) in the client code. With the fix in for bug 483841, we can simplify the file down to: { "plugins": { "requirejs": {} }, "libs": [ "ecma5", "browser" ], "ecmaVersion": 5 } This is because all the default plugins that are require by JS service hooks are always loaded regardless of what the end user puts in the "plugins" entry. Is there a downside to doing this? (In reply to Steve Northover from comment #3) > Is there a downside to doing this? None that I can think of. |
Title says it all. I propose this one: { "plugins": { "doc_comment": { "fullDocs": true }, "eslint": {}, "html": {}, "jsdoc": {}, "open_impl": {}, "outliner": {}, "plugins": {}, "requirejs": {}, "refs": {} }, "libs": [ "ecma5", "browser" ] }