added support for pugjs (previously known as jade)

[greyfocus]

As mentioned here, Jade was renamed to Pug. This also means that in the future, *.jade files will be renamed to *.pug.

This pull request contains the updates necessary to support *.pug files in the same way as *.jade. Even though *.jade files may be gone at some point, we will need to continue to support them as well in the future, for compatibility reasons.

[eddiemonge]

I wonder if its possible to use the existing jade files and mock them using the pug word.

[greyfocus]

It should be quite simple to do that, I was a bit concerned about the dependencies - but it will definitively help in maintaining the tests in the future.

Should we keep the *.pug files though, since that will be the official name? In this case, we could change the jade tests to point to the *.pug fixtures.

[eddiemonge]

I'd change them to *.pug and then point the jade tests/tasks at them so it is both backwards and forwards compatible

[greyfocus]

Hmm... the problem is that the only thing different between the *.jade fixtures and the *.pug fixtures is the extension. Hence, if we remove the *.jade fixtures and point the tests to the *.pug ones, we will not have test coverage for *.jade files.

Consider this,

    it('should work with jade files (buffered comments)', testReplace('pug'));
    it('should work with pug files (buffered comments)', testReplace('pug'));

they do basically the same thing twice. The problem is not with the testReplace(..) function, but more to the fact that we want to test with *.jade files as well, since we use the file extension to figure out the format that we should use.

I have the changes that remove the *.jade fixtures completely and update the tests to use only *.pug files, but I'm not sure if we should include it.

What do you think?

[eddiemonge]

I wonder if we can stub out the lookup by extension to trick it

[patrikx3]

yo, when will to update the npm? i need pug

[p1tt1]

+1

[fvena]

+1

[zce]

+1