Move global to /src and make CSP compatible

[kitsonk]

Type: bug / feature

The following has been addressed in the PR:

• There is a related issue
• All code matches the style guide
• Unit or Functional tests are included in the PR

Description:

This adopts a CSP compliant global detection and migrates it from src/support/global.ts to src/global.ts because it is now aligning to the ES proposal for global.

Resolves #61

[agubler]

@kitsonk is this used by any downstream modules?

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #80 into master will decrease coverage by 0.22%.
The diff coverage is 86.95%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #80      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.13%   96.91%   -0.23%     
==========================================
  Files          30       30              
  Lines        1291     1295       +4     
  Branches      250      252       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         1254     1255       +1     
- Misses         21       23       +2     
- Partials       16       17       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Set.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/native/Symbol.ts	77.77% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/native/number.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/support/queue.ts	92.47% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/Observable.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/Promise.ts	98.18% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/number.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/Symbol.ts	86.56% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/native/Promise.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
src/WeakMap.ts	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
... and 7 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0df5c50...c277a35. Read the comment docs.

[agubler]

This is fine if there are no existing uses of support/global otherwise it will not be backwards compatible.

[kitsonk]

is this used by any downstream modules?

Nothing depended upon it explicitly, so this is additive. Remove of it from core thought (dojo/core#303) will cause some breakage. Maybe we should alias that for now until we can clean it up everywhere else.

[kitsonk]

Also, it is slightly annoying me that we aren't testing the web worker code path too... we should really do that.

[dylans]

Same note to revisit this one as well @kitsonk , thanks!

[kitsonk]

Right now it is too difficult to test the web worker path and then collect the coverage information. We don't really have a choice but to accept the untested code.