feat(async): support returning promises

[sjelin]

Jasmine has opted not to support returning promises: jasmine/jasmine#681

One result of this is that users can't take advantage of async functions 😢

We should just support async functions ourselves. Our users want it (angular/protractor#1214) and it seems like the way of the future.

Thoughts @juliemr @cnishina @mgiambalvo ?

[heathkit]

Well, I think it's lame that they don't want to support returning promises.
I agree we should find a way to support async functions. If there's a well
supported plugin (maybe jasmine-promises
https://www.npmjs.com/package/jasmine-promises?), then we should probably
just use that and make it our "official" solution for doing async tests.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Sammy Jelin notifications@github.com
wrote:

Jasmine has opted not to support returning promises: jasmine/jasmine#681
jasmine/jasmine#681

One result of this is that users can't take advantage of async functions
😢

We should just support async functions ourselves. Our users want it (
angular/protractor#1214
angular/protractor#1214) and it seems like
the way of the future.

Thoughts @juliemr https://github.com/juliemr @cnishina
https://github.com/cnishina @mgiambalvo https://github.com/mgiambalvo
?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#48, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAAlR9aqLxnXrDRgwKj2wakVWXoddkPzks5qKeGOgaJpZM4IzX47
.

[sjelin]

The plugin is a bit weird because you have to include it as a spec. Also, we can use our existing infrastructure around async functions to implement this in ~10 lines - much smaller than including a whole new plugin. And I don't know if jasmine-promises's patches to it, beforeAll, etc., would conflict with out patches.

[mattburrell]

@sjelin async function support would be an awesome feature. Any idea of when it might become available?

[sjelin]

This is already available, as of PR #49. I expected merging that PR to automatically close this issue but I guess not. If I recall correctly, I discovered upon further investigation that the functionality was there the whole time and nothing needed to be done.