fix(hook): handle node module path os agnostically

[ta2edchimp]

Former hook name determination was a simple regex using *nix style path separator /, using path.basename, the required last part gets returned, independent of an os specific path separator.

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 100%

Merging #114 into master will not change coverage

@@           master   #114   diff @@
====================================
  Files           4      4          
  Lines         121    118     -3   
  Methods         0      0          
  Messages        0      0          
  Branches        4      4          
====================================
- Hits          121    118     -3   
  Misses          0      0          
  Partials        0      0          

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 32edf9c...067311c

[ta2edchimp]

Should we investigate means to also automatically test on Windows environments? (AppVeyor comes to my mind, but atm I have no clue how we could get the semantic releases to also depend on successful builds on another service ...)

[kentcdodds]

Yes, this is needed.

[kentcdodds]

Should we investigate means to also automatically test on Windows environments?

Yeah, probably should

(AppVeyor comes to my mind, but atm I have no clue how we could get the semantic releases to also depend on successful builds on another service ...)

We could create a release branch and merge master into that branch when we're ready to do the release. Requires an extra step, but that would allow us to make sure that things look good.

Or we could just keep things as-is and rely on the pull request status checks. If the PR passes AppVeyor, then we'll assume that it'll pass when it merges into master. I think that'd be sufficient.

I've tried AppVeyor once and failed to get it working. But I think it'd be great to have it working on this project.

[ta2edchimp]

Or we could just keep things as-is and rely on the pull request status checks. If the PR passes AppVeyor, then we'll assume that it'll pass when it merges into master. I think that'd be sufficient.

Sounds like a plan that should suffice.

[gtramontina]

I agree with this second approach as it seems simpler to get working. If I remember correctly, we can set github up so it doesn't allow for merging PRs if some checks fail…

BTW, thanks for addressing this issue right away!!