Wholesale cleanup of nodejs related components
Description
- remove redundant cite
- support Basher
- add nenv plugin
- uplift nodenv to follow newer pattern and standard
- ensure node components play well with *env tools
Motivation and Context
I had to work on node and ran into these issues.
How Has This Been Tested?
locally
Screenshots (if appropriate):
Types of changes
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the code style of this project.
- [x] If my change requires a change to the documentation, I have updated the documentation accordingly.
- [x] I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
- [x] If I have added a new file, I also added it to
clean_files.txtand formatted it usinglint_clean_files.sh. - [x] I have added tests to cover my changes, and all the new and existing tests pass.
Does anyone have a strong feeling about leaving https:// in the about-plugin blurb?
Unfortunately the failing test is indicating an unrelated bug that should probably be addressed first.
Edit: I'm unable to reproduce the bug locally but I know I've seen bad search on ubuntu hosts before
cc @NoahGorny @davidpfarrell @gaelicWizard
In my helpers PR (#1934), I have some fixes related to bash-it search (via _bash-it-describe and boy is that code squirrelly); not sure if that's relevant to this test failure.
I don't have feelings about https:// (for once!)
@gaelicWizard Unfortunately it appears that the search code is still broken :(
@cornfeedhobo, "management" contains the substring "gem":
$ bash-it show plugin |grep gem
nenv [ ] Node.js environment management using https://github.com/ryuone/nenv
nodenv [ ] Node.js environment management using https://github.com/nodenv/nodenv
ruby [ ] ruby and rubygems specific functions and settings
So, bash-it search gem returns nenv and nodenv.
@gaelicWizard Hey I finally have a free weekend to think. Sorry I fired off that comment without taking a real look.
Yeah, I see today that search is checking descriptions, which is unexpected, but wfm. Thanks for pointing it out and saving me the hunting.