[TS migration] Migrate GithubUtilsTest to typescript by ruben-rebelo · Pull Request #36427 · Expensify/App

ruben-rebelo · 2024-02-13T18:07:02Z

Details

[TS migration] Migrate *GithubUtilsTest to TypeScript

Fixed Issues

$ #25283
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
Run GithubUtilsTest unit test works as before

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

fabioh8010

Please check @octokit/* and @actions/* libraries that we use to see if we can reuse any types declared here.

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-14T09:31:55Z

+    PRList: Array<{
+        url: string;
+        number: number;
+        isVerified: boolean;
+    }>;


Could you extract this object into a separate type and use it here?

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-14T09:32:01Z

+    labels: Array<{
+        color: string;
+        default: boolean;
+        description: string;
+        id: number;
+        name: string;
+        // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention
+        node_id: string;
+        url: string;
+    }>;


fabioh8010 · 2024-02-14T09:32:07Z

+    labels: Array<{
+        id: number;
+        // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention
+        node_id: string;
+        url: string;
+        name: string;
+        color: string;
+        default: boolean;
+        description: string;
+    }>;


fabioh8010 · 2024-02-14T09:32:42Z

+
+type Mutable<T> = {-readonly [P in keyof T]: T[P]};
+
+const asMutable = <T>(value: T): Mutable<T> => value as Mutable<T>;


Nice usage ❤️

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-14T09:33:18Z

+    asMutable(core).getInput = mockGetInput;

    // Mock octokit module
    const moctokit = {


Is possible to use a type from GitHub library here?

I couldn't find a way to make the mock complaint with the GitHub lib typing.
There was too a lot of missing fields which we do not use on the unit test that needed to be populated and couldn't find a solution for all of them, the best way I think is to have GithubUtils correctly typed so this one would automatically get the correct types.

fabioh8010 · 2024-02-15T08:51:18Z

    isResolved: boolean;
 };

+type PR = {


Suggested change

type PR = {

type PullRequest = {

VickyStash · 2024-02-20T11:07:20Z

+    data: T;
+};
+
+type Mutable<T> = {-readonly [P in keyof T]: T[P]};


Maybe you can reuse Writable type form type-fest lib

blazejkustra · 2024-02-20T14:20:15Z

            {
                number: 3,
                title: 'Test PR 3',
+                // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/naming-convention


How about disabling it in whole file?

… entire file

melvin-bot · 2024-02-20T15:58:35Z

@ntdiary 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]

ntdiary

Based on this conv, it seems that c+ does not need to review the migration of test files, so approve it. :)
cc @yuwenmemon

melvin-bot · 2024-02-26T09:03:44Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #25283 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

OSBotify · 2024-02-26T21:07:23Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/yuwenmemon in version: 1.4.44-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-02-28T23:55:59Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/puneetlath in version: 1.4.44-13 🚀

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

ruben-rebelo added 2 commits February 13, 2024 17:46

[TS migration] Migrate GithubUtilsTest to typescript

a9c81c3

[TS migration] Code improvements

eb8a2cd

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

[TS migration][GithubUtilsTest] Addressed feedback

ed6b6b2

fabioh8010 reviewed Feb 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

ruben-rebelo added 3 commits February 20, 2024 09:51

Merge branch 'main' into ts-migration/githubutilstest

5ce94eb

[TS migration][GithubUtilsTest] Added missing TODO

c37bbba

[TS migration][GithubUtilsTest] Feedback

a6cf95a

VickyStash reviewed Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

[TS migration][GIthubutilstest] Updated with typefest

4535da7

blazejkustra approved these changes Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

[TS migration][GithubUtilsTest] Disabled name convention rule for the…

960ebb7

… entire file

ruben-rebelo marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2024 15:58

ruben-rebelo requested a review from a team as a code owner February 20, 2024 15:58

melvin-bot bot requested review from ntdiary and removed request for a team February 20, 2024 15:58

ntdiary approved these changes Feb 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

yuwenmemon approved these changes Feb 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

yuwenmemon merged commit 4ee3b90 into Expensify:main Feb 26, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 26, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-02-26 #37224

Closed


		type Mutable<T> = {-readonly [P in keyof T]: T[P]};

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

Conversation

ruben-rebelo commented Feb 13, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

fabioh8010 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 20, 2024

Uh oh!

ntdiary left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot bot commented Feb 26, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 26, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Feb 28, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

ntdiary left a comment •

edited

Loading