ci: Prevent future enzyme imports with pre-commit lint rule

[Cal-L]

Description

This change is intended to prevent future imports of enzyme since it has not been maintained React 16. The recommended unit testing library for components is to use is React Testing Library. This is enforced by adding the no-restricted-imports lint rule on pre-commit that lets devs know to use RTL instead.

Caveat - If an existing file using enzyme is changed, the lint rule will fail on the commit command. Since most of our component test files are lightweight, devs should try their best to update the changed file to use RTL.

Next iteration - Retype enzyme import to show strikeout on usage (deprecate)

Related issues

Fixes:

Manual testing steps

1. Go to this page...

Screenshots/Recordings

enzyme-lint.mov

Before

After

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
• I've linked related issues
• I've included manual testing steps
• I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
• I’ve included tests if applicable
• I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

• I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
• I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

[github-actions]

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (445ef2b) 39.65% compared to head (81e864e) 39.65%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8219   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   39.65%   39.65%           
=======================================
  Files        1233     1233           
  Lines       29820    29820           
  Branches     2840     2840           
=======================================
  Hits        11824    11824           
  Misses      17307    17307           
  Partials      689      689           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

E2E test started on Bitrise: https://app.bitrise.io/app/be69d4368ee7e86d/pipelines/5d5dedfd-db08-40f9-b644-cc4a72d712d6
You can also kick off another Bitrise E2E smoke test by removing and re-applying the (Run Smoke E2E) label

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[NicolasMassart]

I think this is really needed, thanks.
The fact that it requires to update tests when we modify a file is, most of the times, not a big deal as test is only just a snapshot match. Very few tests use Enzyme and have extended logic at the same time.

[georgewrmarshall]

Not sure why this requires design system review

[desi]

@georgewrmarshall I figured it out. We had believed the CODEOWNER rule had triggered us for review on this one hence why we were confused but it looks like @Cal-L was actually requesting it (not CODEOWNERS) and was likely just making sure our team saw this change.

[Cal-L]

Added do not merge label - Will sync with @pedronfigueiredo to explore fitness functions instead

[Cal-L]

@georgewrmarshall I figured it out. We had believed the CODEOWNER rule had triggered us for review on this one hence why we were confused but it looks like @Cal-L was actually requesting it (not CODEOWNERS) and was likely just making sure our team saw this change.

Hm.. I didn't explicitly request review from DS. There might be something happening in the automation. cc @desi

[Cal-L]

Closing in favor of fitness function PR - #8789