Require Node.js 14.16

[Richienb]

The next Node.js version that will actually allow us to improve the code is v16 which has the web crypto API built-in, and v18 which has it exposed as a global.

Still need to test browser support.

[Richienb]

@sindresorhus

[sindresorhus]

Did you test it in the browser? Does the uvu thing run in the browser? If so, which one?

[Richienb]

Did you test it in the browser? Does the uvu thing run in the browser? If so, which one?

I switched to uvu since AVA only has implicit test suites which are a bit counterproductive since we're trying to run 2 sets of tests which are exactly the same.

To test browser support, the only browser API that is used, crypto.getRandomValues is polyfilled with the crypto.webcrypto.getRandomValues Node.js API and then the browser code is run in Node.

I've manually verified that the browser code runs in Chrome 100.

[sindresorhus]

I switched to uvu since AVA only has implicit test suites which are a bit counterproductive since we're trying to run 2 sets of tests which are exactly the same.

You can still do that with AVA. I know it's not as nice, but I would strongly prefer to use AVA. Not because I made it, but because it's what I use in all my packages. Probably one day the uvu thing will become unmaintained and I will have to spend time migrating back to AVA. It has happened so many times.

You can just call AVA twice with different argument and check for that in the test file: https://github.com/avajs/ava/blob/main/docs/recipes/passing-arguments-to-your-test-files.md#passing-arguments-to-your-test-files

AVA may some day get nicer ways to do this kind of thing: avajs/ava#2980 And new issues are always welcome if you can think of a nice way for AVA to handle this. Maybe AVA could have some kind of matrix functionality, like GitHub Actions.

[Richienb]

Thought I had seen it used in another pull request that was merged but turns out that it wasn't in one of your repos. Will fix.

[Richienb]

@sindresorhus

[sindresorhus]

We need to indicate somehow that this is a named export and the other one is a default export.

[sindresorhus]

@Richienb bump

[Richienb]

We need to indicate somehow that this is a named export and the other one is a default export.

This is quite a challenging task, haven't found inspiration from other repositories yet. My initial idea was to make the first function name italic but it didn't appear visible enough.

[sindresorhus]

For now, I think the best way is just a code a code example that includes the import.

[Richienb]

Extra sanity check added in Node.js 16.15.0 affected the unit tests, fixed now

[sindresorhus]

Nice work