Skip to content

[No QA] Remove unsafe type assertions from ten test files - #97285

Open
KJ21-ENG wants to merge 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
KJ21-ENG:seatbelt/94739-tests-20260728-3
Open

[No QA] Remove unsafe type assertions from ten test files#97285
KJ21-ENG wants to merge 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
KJ21-ENG:seatbelt/94739-tests-20260728-3

Conversation

@KJ21-ENG

@KJ21-ENG KJ21-ENG commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

This issue 94739 cleanup removes unsafe type assertions from ten test files. It replaces unsafe assertions with production-linked types and typed mocks, while preserving the intentional malformed persisted-data fixture through a localized TypeScript suppression. No production source files were changed.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

  • config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv

Before:

  • tests/actions/SessionTest.ts: 12 violations
  • tests/ui/NetSuiteCustomListSelectorPageTest.tsx: 12 violations
  • tests/unit/DebugUtilsTest.ts: 11 violations
  • tests/unit/ExportOnyxStateTest.ts: 12 violations
  • tests/unit/IOUUtilsTest.ts: 11 violations
  • tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts: 11 violations
  • tests/unit/TransactionTest.ts: 12 violations
  • tests/unit/hooks/useGettingStartedItems.test.ts: 11 violations
  • tests/unit/hooks/useIsBlockedToAddFeed.test.ts: 11 violations
  • tests/unit/pages/home/GettingStartedSection/GettingStartedSectionTest.tsx: 11 violations

After:

  • All ten authorized files: 0 violations after focused verification.

Net reduction:

  • 114 fewer unsafe type assertion violations.

TSV evidence:

  • The canonical cleanup inventory was restored exactly after verification.

Tests

Deterministic cleanup verification reported zero findings for all ten authorized targets. Focused formatter and individually scoped lint checks passed for all ten targets. The executable focused Jest command covering all ten targets passed through the verifier-owned worktree resolver. Verifier-owned focused TypeScript was unavailable only because it reported an unrelated src/components/AddressSearch/index.tsx diagnostic; no authorized-path diagnostic was reported. Fresh exact-head Fork CI run 30568612660 passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and Jest for rebuilt head 7844373e49573745ca3ea092cb996734ad0c1aae. No manual platform testing was performed.

Offline tests

N/A — this is a test-only type-safety cleanup; no application runtime or network behavior changed.

QA Steps

N/A — this test-only cleanup requires no staging or manual QA testing; the title uses the [No QA] prefix.

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
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • 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.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • 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 — test-only cleanup; no UI changes or platform screenshots were required.

Changed files (10)

  • tests/actions/SessionTest.ts
  • tests/ui/NetSuiteCustomListSelectorPageTest.tsx
  • tests/unit/DebugUtilsTest.ts
  • tests/unit/ExportOnyxStateTest.ts
  • tests/unit/IOUUtilsTest.ts
  • tests/unit/RequestConflictUtilsTest.ts
  • tests/unit/TransactionTest.ts
  • tests/unit/hooks/useGettingStartedItems.test.ts
  • tests/unit/hooks/useIsBlockedToAddFeed.test.ts
  • tests/unit/pages/home/GettingStartedSection/GettingStartedSectionTest.tsx

@KJ21-ENG KJ21-ENG changed the title Issue 94739: Remove unsafe type assertions from tests [No QA] Remove unsafe type assertions from ten test files Jul 29, 2026
@KJ21-ENG
KJ21-ENG force-pushed the seatbelt/94739-tests-20260728-3 branch from 3ec4b84 to 7844373 Compare July 30, 2026 18:00
@KJ21-ENG
KJ21-ENG marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2026 14:27
@KJ21-ENG
KJ21-ENG requested a review from a team as a code owner July 31, 2026 14:27
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from ikevin127 and removed request for a team July 31, 2026 14:27
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ikevin127 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]

@ikevin127

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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 that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: HybridApp
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: HybridApp
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • 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.


it('correctly handles reportNextStep parameter when moving transactions to unreported report', async () => {
const mockAPIWrite = jest.spyOn(require('@libs/API'), 'write').mockImplementation(() => Promise.resolve());
// eslint-disable-next-line rulesdir/no-multiple-api-calls -- Spy on API.write to inspect the generated failure data.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟡 tests/unit/TransactionTest.ts: The rulesdir/no-multiple-api-calls suppression is applied inconsistently across the jest.spyOn(API, 'write') sites.

The first converted site (correctly handles reportNextStep parameter when moving transactions between reports) has no disable comment, while the later identical spies all got // eslint-disable-next-line rulesdir/no-multiple-api-calls. If lint is green, one of the two forms is unnecessary.

Please make them consistent so a future reader doesn't assume the first site is special.

Comment on lines +40 to +51
expect(typeof session.authToken).toBe('string');
expect(typeof session.encryptedAuthToken).toBe('string');
expect(typeof preservedUserSession.authToken).toBe('string');
expect(typeof preservedUserSession.encryptedAuthToken).toBe('string');
if (
typeof session.authToken !== 'string' ||
typeof session.encryptedAuthToken !== 'string' ||
typeof preservedUserSession.authToken !== 'string' ||
typeof preservedUserSession.encryptedAuthToken !== 'string'
) {
throw new Error('Expected masked session tokens');
}

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟢 tests/unit/ExportOnyxStateTest.ts: The expect(typeof x).toBe('string') immediately followed by if (typeof x !== 'string') { throw ... } pair is repeated ~10 times.

The if/throw is needed for TS narrowing (expect doesn't narrow), but the two together are verbose. A tiny typed assertion helper collapses each pair to one line and reads better:

function assertString(value: unknown): asserts value is string {
    expect(typeof value).toBe('string');
    if (typeof value !== 'string') {
        throw new Error('Expected a string');
    }
}

// usage
assertString(session.authToken);
expect(session.authToken).toHaveLength('sensitive-auth-token'.length);

Not blocking, just noise reduction if you touch this file again.

(useCardFeeds as jest.Mock).mockReturnValue([{}, {status: 'loaded'}]);
mockedUseCardFeeds.mockReturnValue([{}, loadedResultMetadata, undefined, emptyCardFeedStatuses, mockWorkspaceAccountID]);
const {result, rerender} = renderHook(() => useIsBlockedToAddFeed(mockPolicyID));
expect(result.current.isBlockedToAddNewFeeds).toBe(false);

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🟢 tests/unit/hooks/useIsBlockedToAddFeed.test.ts: Fixtures moved from literal keys ('plaid.ins_19', 'csv#123456') to computed getCardFeedWithDomainID(FEED_BANK_NAME.MOCK_BANK / CSV_CLASSIC, mockWorkspaceAccountID), and several feed fields were dropped (shouldApplyCashbackToBill, the Expensify settlement block, uploadLayoutSettings: []{}).

This is behavior-preserving and more realistic, but the assertions (isBlockedToAddNewFeeds toBe(true)) only stay meaningful if MOCK_BANK still classifies as a real, non-CSV / non-Expensify feed.

Worth a quick sanity confirm since the whole point of those cases is "a real feed exists."

@ikevin127

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@KJ21-ENG (3) comments above to be addressed before approval 🙌

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.

2 participants