[NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript #37035

ruben-rebelo · 2024-02-21T17:01:25Z

Details

[TS migration] Migrate *checkDeployBlockersTest to TypeScript

Fixed Issues

$ #25298
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
Run checkDeployBlockersTest unit test should run successfully

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same as in the Tests section.

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/a

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/a

iOS: Native

N/a

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/a

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/a

MacOS: Desktop

N/a

kubabutkiewicz · 2024-02-22T08:36:34Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

 import run from '../../.github/actions/javascript/checkDeployBlockers/checkDeployBlockers';
 import GithubUtils from '../../.github/libs/GithubUtils';

+type Comment = {body: string};
+type Comments = {


In our guidelines we have a rule to not name types in plural form. please change it

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-22T08:43:57Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

@@ -21,10 +28,12 @@ const mockSetOutput = jest.fn();
 const mockGetIssue = jest.fn();
 const mockListComments = jest.fn();

+const asMutable = <T>(value: T): Writable<T> => value as Writable<T>;


Maybe it would be good to export this type to a file since we have been using in other tests, you can create a AsMutable.ts file under src/types/utils/, wdyt?

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-27T09:54:39Z

src/types/utils/AsMutable.ts

I'm sorry, but could we rename it to asMutable.ts?

blazejkustra · 2024-03-01T16:36:18Z

src/types/utils/asMutable.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+import type {Writable} from 'type-fest';
+
+const asMutable = <T>(value: T): Writable<T> => value as Writable<T>;


It's on main already, so let's merge the newest main

melvin-bot · 2024-03-04T09:10:01Z

@paultsimura Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

paultsimura

No C+ review here as it's a test file.

melvin-bot · 2024-03-04T10:02:32Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #25298 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

NikkiWines · 2024-03-04T18:20:14Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

NikkiWines

Looks good overall, some minor stylistic requests 🙇

NikkiWines · 2024-03-04T18:37:05Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

+type Comment = {
+    data?: CommentData[];
+};


Would be good to have stylistic consistency and keep this all on the same line like we do for CommentData and PullRequest

NikkiWines · 2024-03-04T18:38:20Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

@@ -35,10 +42,12 @@ beforeAll(() => {
            },
        },
    };
+
+    // @ts-expect-error TODO: Remove this once GithubUtils (https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/25382) is migrated to TypeScript.


Could you please add a comment in that issue noting that this will need to be updated once it's been migrated?

There is always a clean up issue at the end with the intention of going through all this TODOs and remove them.

NikkiWines · 2024-03-04T18:40:45Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

 ${
-    !_.isEmpty(deployBlockerList)
+    !deployBlockerList || deployBlockerList.length < 0
        ? `

 **Deploy Blockers:**`
        : ''
 }  


NAB: Since you didn't introduce this code but there's some stray whitespace here

Suggested change

}

}

NikkiWines · 2024-03-04T18:41:19Z

tests/unit/checkDeployBlockersTest.ts

+    .map(
+        ({url, isQASuccess}) => `


NAB: These can be combined into a single line. Same for lines 106 and 107

Prettier is automatically moving this to a new line. Can't really change this.

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-11T16:32:55Z

@ruben-rebelo bump

ruben-rebelo · 2024-03-12T09:56:39Z

@NikkiWines I've updated the PR with your suggestions. Thank you for your review!

NikkiWines

OSBotify · 2024-03-13T19:59:15Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/NikkiWines in version: 1.4.52-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-03-15T10:15:36Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.52-6 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript

6b08f6e

kubabutkiewicz reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

[TS migration][checkDeployBlockersTest] Feedback

6c411a2

fabioh8010 approved these changes Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/types/utils/AsMutable.ts Outdated

Copy link

Contributor

fabioh8010 Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm sorry, but could we rename it to asMutable.ts?

ruben-rebelo and others added 2 commits February 28, 2024 08:37

Rename AsMutable.ts to asMutable.ts

21c3904

[TS migration][checkdeployBlockersTest] feedback

78ca6c6

blazejkustra approved these changes Mar 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into ts-migration/unit-checkDeployBlockersTest

ee8bcd1

ruben-rebelo marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2024 09:09

ruben-rebelo requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2024 09:09

melvin-bot bot requested review from paultsimura and removed request for a team March 4, 2024 09:09

paultsimura approved these changes Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from NikkiWines March 4, 2024 10:04

NikkiWines requested changes Mar 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

[TS migration][checkDeployBlockersTest] Styling

eae030d

NikkiWines approved these changes Mar 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

NikkiWines merged commit c05ce47 into Expensify:main Mar 12, 2024
15 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-13 #38257

Closed

74 tasks

mountiny changed the title ~~[TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript~~ [NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript Mar 14, 2024

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 15, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-22] [TS migration] Migrate 'checkDeployBlockersTest.js' test to TypeScript #25298

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript #37035

[NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript #37035

ruben-rebelo commented Feb 21, 2024

kubabutkiewicz Feb 22, 2024

fabioh8010 Feb 22, 2024

fabioh8010 Feb 27, 2024

blazejkustra Mar 1, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 4, 2024

paultsimura left a comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 4, 2024

NikkiWines commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

NikkiWines left a comment

NikkiWines Mar 4, 2024

NikkiWines Mar 4, 2024

ruben-rebelo Mar 12, 2024

NikkiWines Mar 4, 2024

NikkiWines Mar 4, 2024

ruben-rebelo Mar 12, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 11, 2024

ruben-rebelo commented Mar 12, 2024

NikkiWines left a comment

OSBotify commented Mar 13, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 15, 2024

		@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
		import type {Writable} from 'type-fest';

		const asMutable = <T>(value: T): Writable<T> => value as Writable<T>;

[NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript #37035

[NoQA] [TS migration] Migrate checkDeployBlockersTest to Typescript #37035

Conversation

ruben-rebelo commented Feb 21, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 4, 2024

paultsimura left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 4, 2024

NikkiWines commented Mar 4, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

NikkiWines left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabioh8010 commented Mar 11, 2024

ruben-rebelo commented Mar 12, 2024

NikkiWines left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Mar 13, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 15, 2024

NikkiWines commented Mar 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading