Add option to include other folders in the coverage envelope

[cgewecke]

melonproject/protocol for example has a utilities folder located at project root which the tests require from e.g. require('../utilities/<file>')

[area]

We had this issue internally as well. The solution I've been using is

files = shell.ls(`${workingDir}`)
shell.mkdir(`${coverageDir}`);
shell.cp('-R', files, `${coverageDir}`);

to generate the coverage environment. Adding individual folders, like ../utilities in the case of melonport is one thing, but we also included things from node_modules, so we need to at least copy what's needed from there as well, and at that point it seems like it'd be easier to just copy everything and not require users to configure it to get solidity-coverage to work. Perhaps a configurable override if they know they don't need to copy everything, and performance is an issue?

[cgewecke]

@area Yes I agree, this is a really good idea. If SC is going to use this 'coverageEnv' approach it should just copy the whole project into it . . . and maybe also ask people to declare a coverage network with the right gas values instead of trying to handle the default case for them.

The only reservation I have about this is copying node_modules by default because a) it's usually massive b) you should be able to require packages from anywhere and have them resolve correctly since node recursively searches outwards until it finds something.

Are you having the node_modules issue in migrations.js? How is it coming up? It seems like this problem might be about truffle overloading require incorrectly and is a bug they've scheduled a fix for by v3.3.0.

An interim solution might be to adopt your approach (it's simpler and cleaner anyway), but exclude node_modules by default with an option to include?

[area]

It's actually a mocha reporter that we tell it to use in truffle.js that ends up not being able to be found. It's possible I'm to blame, given I added the ability to editmocha options in truffle...

EDIT: This appears to be a consequence of using the global truffle (mocha only searches in ${cwd}/node_modules), which I guess raises the question: should we be installing our own truffle that we can run locally?

[cgewecke]

Hmmm! Interesting! @area Someone fixed the require bug and it was pushed to truffle master. Is there a chance you could check to see if the reporter works using the #master? If not . . . this is fairly serious problem.

Another remotely possible fix: people are exposing the babel transpiler globally to their truffle project by requiring it at the top of truffle.js and this resolves without issue inside the coverage env. Discussion here. I wonder if something similar could be done with mocha. . . (unlikely).

Maybe we should add truffle! - it's dev dependency right now (to speed up CI). We already add another whole testrpc. This thing will be so big though . . .

[cgewecke]

Published with 0.1.4

[fumecow]

The new truffle 3.3 seems to break requiring local .js files (not a package in node_modules). Truffle 3.2.5 allowed a workaround to require('../file.js') if the file was outside the node_modules directory but this does not work anymore in 3.3. require('file.js') does not work either.

Truffle 3.3 gives an error: Error: Cannot find module "."