feat(server): add transportMode

[knagaitsev]

• This is a bugfix
• This is a feature
• This is a code refactor
• This is a test update
• This is a docs update
• This is a metadata update

For Bugs and Features; did you add new tests?

Yes, based on moving around and changing existing clientMode and serverMode tests

Motivation / Use-Case

#1860

This replaces clientMode and serverMode options with the usage:

transportMode: {
  server: 'ws',
  client: 'ws'
}

Breaking Changes

Experimental options clientMode and serverMode removed

Additional Info

• transportMode-option.test.js is bulky and maybe should be broken down
• the configuration I added into Server.js could definitely be moved into some unified updateOptions helper to be tested more easily.

[alexander-akait]

Maybe we can move this in util, like getTransportMode(options: object): object

[alexander-akait]

Looks good, need fix CI problems

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2116 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2116      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.56%   94.59%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1215     1221       +6     
  Branches      340      344       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         1149     1155       +6     
  Misses         64       64              
  Partials        2        2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/Server.js	97.19% <100%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
lib/utils/getSocketClientPath.js	88.88% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
lib/utils/getSocketServerImplementation.js	90.47% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bdf8444...cdcb7af. Read the comment docs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2116 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2116      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.07%   96.08%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        1224     1227       +3     
  Branches      346      349       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         1176     1179       +3     
  Misses         47       47              
  Partials        1        1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/Server.js	97.33% <100%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
lib/utils/getSocketClientPath.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
lib/utils/normalizeOptions.js	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
lib/utils/getSocketServerImplementation.js	90.47% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 460f15a...aa17f7c. Read the comment docs.

[knagaitsev]

@evilebottnawi @hiroppy What is the cause of the Lint npm audit problem? I have seen it running other CI builds as well.

[alexander-akait]

@Loonride i think we need update package-json.lock

[hiroppy]

I created a pr which updated package-lock.json. #2123

[alexander-akait]

/cc @Loonride something wrong with CI 😕 Looks need update snapshots or not

[knagaitsev]

@evilebottnawi Looks like unlucky e2e test run. Maybe there is a way to let jest run concurrently for all other tests, but then run e2e one at a time? Now that I look at it, I see Client.test.js and Progress.test.js are nearby each other in the test run failures, and they are both editing the same file, which should be changed. I will send another PR to improve it.

[alexander-akait]

/cc @Loonride what is status, i think we should merge this PR and do release

[knagaitsev]

@evilebottnawi Ready for merge.

[alexander-akait]

@Loonride we need something any for CI fix?