Joi 16 Compatibility

[Tornquist]

Summary

• Upgrade all @hapi dependencies to current version. Major change from Joi 15 to 16.
• Wrap hapi validation blocks to force hapi to use joi 16 instead of 15 (the packaged default)
• Update lib/utilities, lib/paths, lib/properties to use new internal joi object structure
• Update all tests

[robmcguinness]

@Tornquist the unit test seem to pass. Is this ready for review?

[robmcguinness]

actually nm :) 13 of 198 tests failed. i'll try and take a peek.

[matejdr]

Hi everyone, love the fact you are upgrading this. I kinda need this for one of my projects as well.
Had a quick look and I fixed 4 failed tests, mind adding me as a writer?

or just change these lines:
lib/responses.js:142
description: Hoek.reach(joiObj, '_description'),
to
description: Hoek.reach(joiObj, '_flags.description'),

lib/responses.js:97
if (Hoek.reach(userDefindedSchemas[key], 'schema.isJoi') && userDefindedSchemas[key].schema.isJoi === true) {
to
if (Hoek.reach(userDefindedSchemas[key], 'schema') && Utilities.isJoi(userDefindedSchemas[key].schema) === true) {

I can have a look at the remaining failed tests if you want.

[Tornquist]

@matejdr Just make a PR into my branch.

[robmcguinness]

awesome let's keep this going

[matejdr]

@Tornquist , can you give me write access to your repo: git@github.com:Tornquist/hapi-swagger.git
At least to create new branches and create pull requests.

I don't want to fork the repo for the purpose of a single commit.

I fixed all the issues by the way, all tests pass.
Fixes for 2 tests are questionable though and I'll let you decide.

[Tornquist]

@matejdr I had missed that you put a PR up, for some reason I didn't get the notification.

Thanks for resolving these! I'll review shortly.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.6%) to 98.823% when pulling 3921811 on Tornquist:joi-16 into 9bb39ea on glennjones:master.

[Tornquist]

All tests are working. The coverage dropping below 99% is causing travis to fail.

Most of the lines reported as missed are required for the test suite to run successfully. A few are fallback cases for non-joi objects being sent in for validation. These blocks will be required again when hapi is not shipping a different joi version internally, but for now are not called.

[robmcguinness]

@Tornquist ready for review?

[robmcguinness]

LGTM. There is a coverage drop but I don't think it is worth holding up the release

[Tornquist]

@robmcguinness I believe it's about ready. I dropped the lab coverage threshold to 98 locally so that I could verify the full run with the Typescript checking afterward. There are hapi changes in Boom that are not contained the in @types package, and it looks like typescript type checking is currently broken if you're using the most recent packages.

To wrap this up for a final happy run, what are your thoughts on:

1. Dropping the coverage min to 98%
2. Removing the typescript checking

I am generally uncomfortable with removing/lowering checks, but I'm also not a fan of leaving them in as-if this was passing those marks.

Ref: hapijs/boom#251

[Tornquist]

I just gave it all another once-over and I'm happy with where it is.