update npm package name to edx

[singingwolfboy]

Part 6 of #1815

[gwprice]

If this name isn't referenced anywhere else, what is it for?

[gwprice]

Why is b33bb1a included in this?

[singingwolfboy]

I think the name is only used if some node package were to depend on edX, which wouldn't make sense. However, it still makes sense to use "edx" instead of "mitx" for the name -- it's less confusing.

As for the extra commit in the PR, I think that's an artifact of the recent, accidental force-push to master (and subsequent fix). I'll rebase it, and that commit should go away.

[gwprice]

It looks like the only purpose of the package.json file is to install a dev tool (coffee-script). That should be part of dev environment setup, not a rake task.

[singingwolfboy]

@gwprice Are you suggesting that we remove package.json from the repository, and instead make the rake task just run npm install coffee-script?

[gwprice]

I don't think the rake task should be doing that; it should be part of the dev environment setup.

[singingwolfboy]

This seems like the proper way for it to be part of the dev environment setup. Just as we have requirements/edx/base.txt define the Python packages that the environment should contain, package.json defines the Node packages that the environment should contain. I believe that the dev environment scripts already run npm install, which looks for a package.json file and installs all the dependencies that it lists.

So basically, it seems to me like this is the right way of doing it. Do you disagree?

[gwprice]

I do disagree. The requirements.txt file contains libraries on which we depend and is part of our runtime setup, not dev env setup. coffee-script isn't really a library that we are using, it's a compiler. The way we treat it should be more like ruby or python (i.e. a one-time installation at the time of dev env setup).

[gwprice]

👍 for now, but this file should go away in the not-too-distant future

[singingwolfboy]

Fine by me. Merging.