javascript: Port missing exercises from JavaScript to EcmaScript track

After more conversation with @kytrinyx and others, I’ve prepared a few things for deprecating the current JS track.

For V2, the EcmaScript track will become the “new” JavaScript track. Users’ submissions will be migrated as part of the process.

Katrina’s notes on the migration process:

We will take the v1 site down in order to launch v2. The site will have to be offline for 24-48 hours, because we have a massive data migration that we need to do.

During that time, we can:

rename https://github.com/exercism/javascript to https://github.com/exercism/DEPRECATED.javascript

set active: false in the config of DEPRECATED.javascript

rename https://github.com/exercism/ecmascript to https://github.com/exercism/javascript

delete the GitHub team exercism/javascript

rename the GitHub team exercism/ecmascript to exercism/javascript

In the meantime, I’ve closed all open issues and PRs on the JS track as wontfix, leaving one issue open stating the track will be deprecated. I have also updated the README to alert users to the deprecation.

On this track, we need to

[] identify any exercises that exist in the current JS track but not in this one
[] open issues to port those exercises

@tejasbubane @joelwallis ( @jackhughesweb ? ) would any of you care to take on the audit of missing exercises? That step seems to need to be done first.

About this issue

Original URL
State: closed
Created 6 years ago
Comments: 17 (17 by maintainers)

Most upvoted comments

Done.

matthewmorgan on Jul 19, 2018

Not a problem at all! I just didn’t want you to be disappointed if you were fired up to do the work!

matthewmorgan on Jul 20, 2018

Hi @matthewmorgan,

Unfortunately, I’m not finding time this week to work on this issue. Feel free to take point-mutations from my plate. Thank you very much for stepping forward to offer some help.

joeljuca on Jul 19, 2018

@joelwallis awesome! A couple of things that came up with @gavinhenderson’s PR:

need to change UUID, even though the track is different.
don’t forget to update README to refer to EcmaScript rather than JS for links and other instructions.

I had neglected to call these out explicitly.

matthewmorgan on Jun 25, 2018

On #412 @joelwallis wrote:

Matt,

I could help on it. Should I compare the implementations too? EcmaScropt and JavaScript tracks have different ways to implement the exercises. The first one uses way more classes while the second one uses functions and constructors. How will we proceed with it? Is it something relevant?

@joelwallis I did discuss with @kytrinyx the differences in implementation syntax between the JS track and the ES track for a given exercise.

I think that changing the API of the tests and example of a newly ported exercise could be at the discretion of the implementer. Function or POJO based solutions are just as legitimate in ES6 as class-based ones. For sure we would want to update the module syntax and the test syntax (it vs test) to conform to the ES track conventions.

As far as worrying about an existing exercise that is implemented in both places, but with a different API, the ES one should take precedence and remain as-is. This may break a user’s existing solution, but this happens frequently with normal changes and improvements to exercise code anyway.

The intention is that a user’s existing solutions will be migrated to the matching exercise in the new track, though it may not exactly match because of potential API differences. The code will still be there, and they could update their solution if they want to.

Let me know if this sounds OK to you, or if you have any objections or questions.

Thanks!

matthewmorgan on Jun 23, 2018