Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[No QA][TS migration] Adjust ESLint and TS configs #40778

Merged

Conversation

blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor

@blazejkustra blazejkustra commented Apr 23, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #39119
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  • Open the code, try to change the code in multiple places and verify that:
    • It works reliably every time
    • Performance is as usual
    • ESLint and TS catches errors according to rules/options in configs

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

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 either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • 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 UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design 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

N/A

@blazejkustra blazejkustra changed the title [TS migration] Adjust ESLint and TS configs [No QA][TS migration] Adjust ESLint and TS configs Apr 23, 2024
.eslintrc.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm curious, why did these generated files change?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no idea what caused this, I only changed eslint and TS configs. Any idea? 😅

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it's because of the .eslintrc.js added?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But let's make sure workflow tests are passing and watch for regressions 👀

Copy link
Contributor

@BartoszGrajdek BartoszGrajdek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left a few comments 👀

web/gtm.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tsconfig.json Show resolved Hide resolved
src/components/OptionsSelector/BaseOptionsSelector.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@BartoszGrajdek BartoszGrajdek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@blazejkustra blazejkustra marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2024 16:15
@blazejkustra blazejkustra requested a review from a team as a code owner April 24, 2024 16:15
Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

High-level request: rather than making all these changes here in our .eslintrc.js, can we update our base eslint-config-expensify to include all the rules (dynamically for JS and TS)?

@blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roryabraham While I agree that it would be nice to move the majority of rules to eslint-config-expensify; I don't think it's worth the effort for now.

This won't be as easy as moving all the rules from E/App .eslintrc.js to eslint-config-expensify. This would be rather a big refactor of eslint-config-expensify with a lot of testing in different repos to make sure TS/React/RN rules are applied to E/App while a different set of rules is used in react-native-onyx and the same goes for other repos that Expensify maintains (old mobile/old web/live-markdown/expensify-common etc).

I'm worried that it would take too much time and won't bring much value.

  • How about creating a backlog ticket for this? / Or just do nothing for now.
  • An alternative approach would be to pick all rules that are both used in onyx and E/App and move them to eslint-config-expensify.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

I'm confused why it would be a big refactor in eslint-config-expensify, given that most/all the rules here are specific to either TS files or React Native. I'd think that would mean it would have minimal effect on our other repos unless they start using TS or RN.

That said, if you investigated and feel strongly then it's NAB, because as I said I'd expect the effect on other repos to be very limited.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

There are conflicts and failing TS checks here, btw

roryabraham
roryabraham previously approved these changes May 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

overall this seems good

.eslintignore Outdated
**/dist/*
android/**/build/*
.github/actions/**/index.js"
.*
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

question: does this line ignore anything that starts with .? If yes, great change! I was going to ask that we ignore .bundle and .expo too but it seems like that's covered.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes! I thought it was clever but turns out here are two caveats:

  • With this approach .github and .storybook weren't linted (it's more complicated because we want to lint .github but not .github/actions/**/index.js)
  • Turns out dot files/directories are automatically omitted so no need for .*, instead I did this:
!.storybook
!.github

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@parasharrajat I checked it myself but could you double check that correct directories are linted (.github, .storybook, src, web, desktop etc) and correct are omitted (.github/actions/**/index.js, configs, dist, .expo, .git)? Thank you!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks good to me.

Copy link
Member

@parasharrajat parasharrajat May 13, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some files are still showing errors via ts compiler though the EsLint is not triggered.

.eslintrc.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor Author

There are conflicts and failing TS checks here, btw

@roryabraham Left an explanation here

mountiny
mountiny previously approved these changes May 13, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny mountiny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, the TS failures are expected for now

@roryabraham all yours

@rinej rinej mentioned this pull request May 13, 2024
48 tasks
@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Conflict again @blazejkustra

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

parasharrajat commented May 13, 2024

Noticed a thing. Not sure if I am only affected from it.

Shouldn't the following comments throw a warning as we are not putting new lines before them? This Expensify.tsx file.

Screenshot 2024-05-13 at 7 33 38 PM

@blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Shouldn't the following comments throw a warning as we are not putting new lines before them? This Expensify.tsx file.

@parasharrajat I believe we don't have a rule for it 🤔

@parasharrajat
Copy link
Member

Aha, I see.

@blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm confused why it would be a big refactor in eslint-config-expensify, given that most/all the rules here are specific to either TS files or React Native. I'd think that would mean it would have minimal effect on our other repos unless they start using TS or RN.

You're correct, that most of these rules are indeed specific to TS and RN, but also specific to NewDot. These rules might impact other projects that have different coding styles (Onyx as an example). Such impact might go unnoticed unless thoroughly checked. This leads to the need to restructure and possibly add another preset to eslint-config-expensify. Rather than extending from 'expensify' in .eslintrc.js as shown below:

extends: [ 'expensify', ...

We would have something like this instead:

extends ['expensify-typescript', ...

Breaking it down, this implies:

  • Reorganization of the rules, potentially reshaping a significant part of the eslint-config-expensify repository
  • Collaborative agreement on rules to be applicable across all JS/TS repositories (which could also entail deprecating some JS rules)
  • Extensive testing across various repositories, a few of which I don't have access to

That's where the potential time consumption and complexity arises from. @roryabraham Let me your thoughts + please have a final look at the PR 😄

Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 👍🏼

TypeCheck is failing because of the addition of a new .js file, but it's a .eslintrc.js, so not a concern. Going to merge.

@roryabraham roryabraham merged commit b7dcc5e into Expensify:main May 14, 2024
22 of 23 checks passed
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label May 14, 2024
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented May 14, 2024

@roryabraham looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

not an emergency - see last comment

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.4.74-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.74-6 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants