Add support for webpack@2.1.0-beta

[goldhand]

Will fix error thrown by webpack 2.1.0-beta.7+ and support through beta-15 (latest). Resolves #117

[dignifiedquire]

LGTM.

@sokra would be nice to merge this and publish master under a beta flag maybe, or just bring it into the main line as it does not seem to me this would break anything?

[karin-n]

Yes please - would love to get this merged in!

[Roam-Cooper]

I need this too +1

[goesbysteve]

This is our last blocker to moving to webpack 2.0Beta. Can we assist in anyway?

[goldhand]

I've been temporarily using: "karma-webpack": "goldhand/karma-webpack", as my dependency until this is merged or fixed otherwise.

[goesbysteve]

Thanks @goldhand. I've actually got our setup working with webpack@2.1.0beta15 and karma-webpack@1.7.0. Our tests and setup are simple so maybe partial support is there. I'd need to look into what the issues were in #117 and the changes in this pull request.

UPDATE: the peer dependence is just an npm warning, I think as we setup both entry and plugins and pass that through to karma inside karma.conf.js that we are able to not have any issues. Though I agree it's best to officially support webpack@2 :-)

[jakemhiller]

Peer dependency issues actually prevent npm shrinkwrap from working, so this issue is actually preventing me from upgrading :/

[goesbysteve]

@jakemhiller acknowledged. I'm now hitting other issues of dependency versions on other packages. I think I'm going to end up having to fork a few packages and install them from our git. Maybe that would work for you?

[jakemhiller]

yep, that's what i'm doing as a temporary solution, thanks.

[joshwiens]

@goldhand - Can we get this updated to v2.1.0-beta.20 ( or as close as is possible to keep the change benign ) and well get this landed assuming nothing starts on fire :)

And I agree with @dignifiedquire - This should not require a beta tag on release unless of course @MikaAK would like to start that process as a security blanket.

[MikaAK]

LGTM we can merge this into master once it's updated to beta.20

[kentcdodds]

Actually, checking semver.npmjs.com, you'll see that ^1.4.0 || ^2.1.0-beta actually does cover all the beta versions. I think this is the appropriate version range for a peerDependency. Though I would recommend extending it further: ^1.4.0 || ^2 || ^2.1.0-beta because I'm fairly confident that this will still work fine with 2.0.0 when it's released

[goldhand]

@MikaAK Updated and tested with beta.20 travis-ci failed but I think that's because it's not set up yet

[kentcdodds]

FWIW LGTM :-)

[joshwiens]

@goldhand - Yes, it's trying to go it's ruby route because there is no .travis.yml I'm adding the travis build now, PR shortly.

Also LGTM :)

[kentcdodds]

Could someone please publish this change?

[joshwiens]

The someone you are looking for would be @MikaAK :)

[joshwiens]

Arggg can't edit on this app. @kentcdodds I'll see to getting this published today. At minimum on a next or beta tag.

[kentcdodds]

Ping again...?

[MikaAK]

Waiting of #163 and then a release will be cut

[joshwiens]

Sorry @kentcdodds you're waiting on me :(
Some dummy forgot about the nuance of node v4 having been on 5 and 6 so long.

I'll have it fixed momentarily.