chore(td-tools): enable eslint/strict-boolean-expressions and strictNullChecks

[danielpeintner]

This PR addresses one checkmark in #1046.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 76.47% and project coverage change: -0.03% ⚠️

Comparison is base (c10fba2) 75.34% compared to head (7762ea4) 75.31%.
Report is 12 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1077      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.34%   75.31%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines       16079    16052      -27     
  Branches     1502     1501       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        12114    12089      -25     
+ Misses       3926     3924       -2     
  Partials       39       39              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
packages/td-tools/src/thing-model-helpers.ts	84.41% <66.66%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
...s/td-tools/src/util/asset-interface-description.ts	81.50% <75.60%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
packages/td-tools/src/td-parser.ts	93.18% <90.90%> (-0.36%)	⬇️
packages/td-tools/src/thing-description.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[relu91]

I started working on this, but I gave up. Thank you for bringing this up! I think we should pay double attention to the changes... because sometimes we used null as synonym of undefined

[danielpeintner]

One more thing: Since there are lots of changes I am now more thinking about proposing PRs for each package step by step... otherwise it gets huge and hardly manageable..
What do people think?

[danielpeintner]

I started working on this, but I gave up. Thank you for bringing this up! I think we should pay double attention to the changes... because sometimes we used null as synonym of undefined

I think after doing some more work on it I noticed this issue as well.

In a sense

if (bla !== undefined) {

is not enough and we would almost need

if (bla !== undefined && bla !== null) {

which I really don't like...

Ideas/Proposals?

[JKRhb]

In a sense

if (bla !== undefined) {

is not enough and we would almost need

if (bla !== undefined && bla !== null) {

which I really don't like...

Ideas/Proposals?

I think in this case, you can (somewhat unintuitively) cover both with bla != null. When I integrated strict null checks in node-coap, that concept was very helpful in dealing with this scenario. As mentioned somewhere else, this is apparently one of the few scenarios where it is valid to use the != operator instead of the !== operator.

[danielpeintner]

@JKRhb I think some of the proposed changes are not correct and lead to issues. I suggest to keep them as is...
I think that's why the thing model helper tests are failing. I revert them ...

EDIT: Tests are still failing.. honestly not sure why since the only change is =! null 🤷‍♂️
Am I missing something!?

[danielpeintner]

@JKRhb @relu91 I am a bit lost and do not understand why some TM tests are failing. Can you spot the issue!?
I think I need a break 🙈

EDIT: I think I found the issue.. options.selfComposition is actually boolean

I think the PR is ready for review

[relu91]

Some further simplifications.

[danielpeintner]

Note: I am not sure "why" but the CI gets stuck all the time in "Test with coverage report" with this PR. Local tests run fine...

[relu91]

Note: I am not sure "why" but the CI gets stuck all the time in "Test with coverage report" with this PR. Local tests run fine...

I was surprised too, let's see if #1093 get stuck too.

[relu91]

Greenlight from my side too!