[No QA] Clean up unsafe type assertions in tests by KJ21-ENG · Pull Request #97510 · Expensify/App

KJ21-ENG · 2026-07-30T21:26:53Z

Explanation of Change

Removed @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations from 15 test and test-helper files as part of Expensify/App issue #94739.

What changed:

Replaced unsafe fixture and mock assertions with production-derived types, typed mock builders, and explicit runtime narrowing at genuine erased-data boundaries.
Reused the shared required Onyx-update helper for optimistic-data assertions while preserving its existing consumers and overloads.
Preserved the existing scenarios, fixture values, assertion subjects, and runtime behavior; no production source, UI, styling, assets, copy, navigation behavior, or user-facing behavior changed.

Why this approach is safe:

All 15 target counts are zero, focused formatting and lint passed, and every focused Jest suite passed except the verifier-proven identical pinned-base BottomTabBarTest failure.
Independent scope, type-safety, and regression reviews were evaluated for the exact diff. The reported route-fixture concern was cleared against the production route writer and consumer: the cleanup preserves the real runtime CREATE route shape while replacing a fully unchecked cast.
Trusted exact-head Fork CI passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and all 14 targeted Jest suites on signed commit a41c5193254679009ec4e2b4f63a66df8c219d49.
Manual platform, high-traffic-account, offline, visual, Storybook, deeplink, message-formatting, design, CSS, asset, and copy testing are not applicable because this PR changes test implementation only.
No new feature or bug fix is introduced; existing focused tests provide the failure-scenario coverage, so no additional unit-test scenarios are required.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv at pinned base 8960aa81fd37e54ae2d1493a3c9230b42751814b

Before:

tests/actions/IOU/RequestMoneyTest.ts: 5 violations
tests/navigation/createDynamicRouteTests.ts: 5 violations
tests/ui/BottomTabBarTest.tsx: 5 violations
tests/ui/IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx: 5 violations
tests/ui/MoneyRequestReportFooter.tsx: 5 violations
tests/unit/AgentZeroStatusContextTest.ts: 5 violations
tests/unit/BaseSelectionListSectionsTest.tsx: 5 violations
tests/unit/CIGitLogicTest.ts: 5 violations
tests/unit/TransactionNavigationUtilsTest.ts: 6 violations
tests/unit/TravelInvoicingUtilsTest.ts: 6 violations
tests/unit/useAutoUpdateTimezoneTest.tsx: 6 violations
tests/unit/useCurrentReportIDTest.tsx: 6 violations
tests/unit/useGetExpensifyCardFromReportActionTest.ts: 6 violations
tests/unit/useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts: 6 violations
tests/utils/TestHelper.ts: 6 violations
Total: 82 violations

After:

tests/actions/IOU/RequestMoneyTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/navigation/createDynamicRouteTests.ts: 0 violations
tests/ui/BottomTabBarTest.tsx: 0 violations
tests/ui/IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx: 0 violations
tests/ui/MoneyRequestReportFooter.tsx: 0 violations
tests/unit/AgentZeroStatusContextTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/unit/BaseSelectionListSectionsTest.tsx: 0 violations
tests/unit/CIGitLogicTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/unit/TransactionNavigationUtilsTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/unit/TravelInvoicingUtilsTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/unit/useAutoUpdateTimezoneTest.tsx: 0 violations
tests/unit/useCurrentReportIDTest.tsx: 0 violations
tests/unit/useGetExpensifyCardFromReportActionTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/unit/useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts: 0 violations
tests/utils/TestHelper.ts: 0 violations
Total: 0 violations

Net reduction:

82 fewer @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations across 15 files.

TSV evidence:

Authoritative writable lint removed the target rows after the counts reached zero.
The generated TSV was restored byte-for-byte and is intentionally absent from this PR because Expensify/App post-merge automation tightens the baseline on main.

Tests

Run focused lint for the 15 changed files and verify there are no target-rule warnings.
Run the focused Jest suites for the 14 executable test targets and verify they pass.
Run git diff --check and verify the tracked Seatbelt TSV remains byte-identical.
Exact-head Fork CI result: provider run 30613219884 passed typecheck, lint, format, React Compiler, and Jest for commit a41c5193254679009ec4e2b4f63a66df8c219d49.
The local BottomTabBarTest failure was reproduced identically on untouched pinned base 8960aa81fd37e54ae2d1493a3c9230b42751814b; exact-head Fork CI Jest passed.

Failure-scenario coverage is supplied by the existing focused Jest scenarios. Browser/device console checks and manual platform execution are not applicable to this test-only change.

Offline tests

Not applicable because this is a test-only type-safety cleanup with no production network, storage, or offline behavior changes.

QA Steps

Not applicable for staging or production QA because production behavior and user-interface code are unchanged. Validation is fully automated by focused verification, independent review, and exact-head Fork CI.

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Not applicable on Android Native, Android mWeb Chrome, iOS Native, iOS mWeb Safari, or MacOS Chrome/Safari because this PR changes only test implementation and has no visual output.

Changed files (15)

tests/actions/IOU/RequestMoneyTest.ts
tests/navigation/createDynamicRouteTests.ts
tests/ui/BottomTabBarTest.tsx
tests/ui/IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx
tests/ui/MoneyRequestReportFooter.tsx
tests/unit/AgentZeroStatusContextTest.ts
tests/unit/BaseSelectionListSectionsTest.tsx
tests/unit/CIGitLogicTest.ts
tests/unit/TransactionNavigationUtilsTest.ts
tests/unit/TravelInvoicingUtilsTest.ts
tests/unit/useAutoUpdateTimezoneTest.tsx
tests/unit/useCurrentReportIDTest.tsx
tests/unit/useGetExpensifyCardFromReportActionTest.ts
tests/unit/useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts
tests/utils/TestHelper.ts

melvin-bot · 2026-07-31T14:27:34Z

@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 · 2026-08-02T01:55:28Z

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.

ikevin127 · 2026-08-02T02:12:22Z

                ...(name === TEST_CASES.hasSyncErrors.name
                    ? {
-                          quickbooksOnline: {
+                          quickbooksOnline: createMock<NonNullable<NonNullable<Policy['connections']>[typeof CONST.POLICY.CONNECTIONS.NAME.QBO]>>({


🟡 DRY: useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts - Use the exported Connections map instead of indexing into Policy

The connection fixtures repeat this ~130-char extraction 3+ times:

createMock<NonNullable<NonNullable<Policy['connections']>[typeof CONST.POLICY.CONNECTIONS.NAME.QBO]>>({ ... })

Connections is exported from @src/types/onyx/Policy (export list at Policy.ts:2883), so this can read from the map type directly and drop one NonNullable layer:

import type {Connections} from '@src/types/onyx/Policy'; createMock<NonNullable<Connections[typeof CONST.POLICY.CONNECTIONS.NAME.QBO]>>({ ... })

Same type, less indexing gymnastics, and it leans on the exported type the way the rest of the series does. Low severity, but since it repeats it's worth tidying ✅

ikevin127 · 2026-08-02T02:15:19Z

+                            route={createMock<PlatformStackScreenProps<MoneyRequestNavigatorParamList, typeof SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.STEP_SCAN>['route']>({
+                                key: 'StepScan',
+                                name: SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.STEP_SCAN,
+                                params: {
+                                    action: CONST.IOU.ACTION.CREATE,
+                                    iouType: CONST.IOU.TYPE.SUBMIT,
+                                    reportID: REPORT_ID,
+                                    transactionID: TRANSACTION_ID_1,
+                                    backTo: ROUTES.MONEY_REQUEST_STEP_CONFIRMATION.route,
+                                    pageIndex: 0,
+                                },
+                            })}


🟡 CONSISTENCY: IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx: Use ScanRoute for both renders

The second render uses the exported ScanRoute, but the first still spells out createMock<PlatformStackScreenProps<MoneyRequestNavigatorParamList, typeof SCREENS.MONEY_REQUEST.STEP_SCAN>['route']>.

ScanRoute is PlatformStackRouteProp<..., STEP_SCAN | CREATE> (IOURequestStepScan/types.ts:27), so it already covers the STEP_SCAN case, both route props can be createMock<ScanRoute>(...).

Right now the same prop is typed two different ways in one file, which reads like an oversight.
(The navigation props can stay as-is)

ikevin127

🟢 LGTM - Two DRY / CONSISTENCY non-blocking comments ☝️

Solid cleanup, and the highest-stakes part (the shared tests/utils/TestHelper.ts) is done well. I ran all 14 executable suites against the checked-out head (a41c5193254, the PR's exact head): everything passes.

Two low-severity nits below; nothing blocks ✅

tests: clean unsafe type assertions

aa5b5a0

melvin-bot Bot assigned KJ21-ENG Jul 30, 2026

tests: fix Knip and assertion cleanup findings

a41c519

KJ21-ENG marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2026 14:27

KJ21-ENG requested a review from a team as a code owner July 31, 2026 14:27

melvin-bot Bot requested review from ikevin127 and removed request for a team July 31, 2026 14:27

ikevin127 reviewed Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

ikevin127 approved these changes Aug 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from blimpich August 2, 2026 02:16

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

[No QA] Clean up unsafe type assertions in tests - #97510

[No QA] Clean up unsafe type assertions in tests#97510
KJ21-ENG wants to merge 2 commits into
Expensify:mainfrom
KJ21-ENG:seatbelt/94739-tests-20260730-04

KJ21-ENG commented Jul 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Aug 2, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 left a comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

KJ21-ENG commented Jul 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Count change

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Changed files (15)

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Jul 31, 2026

Uh oh!

ikevin127 commented Aug 2, 2026

Reviewer Checklist

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Aug 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 DRY: useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts - Use the exported Connections map instead of indexing into Policy

Uh oh!

ikevin127 Aug 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 CONSISTENCY: IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx: Use ScanRoute for both renders

Uh oh!

ikevin127 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

KJ21-ENG commented Jul 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

🟡 DRY: `useWorkspacesTabIndicatorStatusTest.ts` - Use the exported `Connections` map instead of indexing into `Policy`

🟡 CONSISTENCY: `IOURequestStepScanTest.tsx`: Use `ScanRoute` for both renders