A few minor issues I have about protractor-styleguide HOT 1 CLOSED

I just watched your presentation and thought it was good and I'm glad that someone has created a
styleguide for protractor.

Thank you. I'm really happy to hear.

One of the main problems I have is the implication that protractor is only for e2e tests. I also really like > protractor for component (directive) integration tests. Some of these guidelines are very specific to the > first case.

You are right, the guidelines really focus on the first case, because that's where I saw most of the confusion and misunderstandings coming from. With directives opinions are quite divided, and even inside our team, we had a lot of discussions about what kind of tests we want for them. I think it ofc ultimately depends on how complex the directive is, but imo you can get away with testing most of the things in unit tests, as long as, as you pointed out, there's not excessive DOM testing going on.

It is suggested not to mock out anything. Some of my directives communicate with the server (through > a service) and I like to stub this out. I don't want to have to run a server to integration test my directives.

I updated that part this morning in the repo. I understand what you are saying and I think in the end it depends very much on your use case.

I like to use gulp, but I don't set up my configuration this way. I agree with what is said about not
duplicating configuration. However, I like to be able to use protractor directly from the command line.

You can still use protractor from the command line and just pass in some arguments. Not so elegant, but still doable.

Thanks for creating this.

Thank YOU very much for your thoughts and feedback. I really appreciate it ^_^

from protractor-styleguide.