Issue #340 - Feature: CI(Github Actions) - Performs linting, formatting, and type-checking

[ayushtiwari110]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Implements a new CI workflow for code quality checks such as linting, formatting, type-checking, as well as build checks.

Issue Number:

• Resolves Feature: CI(Github Actions) - Performs linting, formatting, and type-checking  #340

Summary
This PR sets up a CI workflow triggered on pull requests. The workflow includes the following jobs:

Linting and Type-Checking: Ensures code style consistency and catches potential type errors.
Build: Verifies that the project can be successfully built.
The workflow is designed to improve code quality and maintainability by catching potential issues early in the development process.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No, this PR does not introduces breaking changes...

[aialok]

See Comments.

[aialok]

Thank You @ayushtiwari110, You have done amazing job : )

• Can you please resolve the suggested changes.
• One more things, Can we cache our dependencies so we can speed up our workflows.

Here are some reference you can take help from :

• https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows
• https://mericozkayagan.medium.com/caching-from-base-branch-in-github-actions-for-yarn-e22d07c34442

Ping me. If you need any help :)

cc : @benjagm thoughts : )

[ayushtiwari110]

Hey @aialok , firstly thanks for reviewing the PR.
I have added the requested changes and have cached the dependencies. You can check and let me know of any further changes required. Thanks!
@benjagm if there are any suggestions from your side, I would be glad to hear them!

[benjagm]

Thanks everyone for the great work here. As soon as @aialok approves I'd do my review.

[aialok]

See Comments. Other than this everything look good to me.
Can you please change the workflow file name to pull-request.yml. It will make more sense as we are using same naming convention in other workflow too.
Thank you @ayushtiwari110 : )

[aialok]

my bad....I forget to click on add comment : (

[ayushtiwari110]

@aialok I have changed the workflow file name as per conventions. Kindly check.
Do let me know in case of any update. Thanks!🚀

[ayushtiwari110]

I guess the cache process for installation of dependencies must be same for npm and yarn? Could you please clarify once
for Next build job,I'll update the code as per their documentation.

[ayushtiwari110]

I guess the cache process for installation of dependencies must be same for npm and yarn? Could you please clarify once for Next build job,I'll update the code as per their documentation.

Ok well I got it, The modules path will be different for yarn. I'll update the requested changes...

[aialok]

I guess the cache process for installation of dependencies must be same for npm and yarn? Could you please clarify once for Next build job,I'll update the code as per their documentation.

Ok well I got it, The modules path will be different for yarn. I'll update the requested changes...

https://github.com/actions/cache/blob/main/examples.md#node---yarn

you can check out this : )

[ayushtiwari110]

for next build, shall i cache both the build files and the node modules?

[ayushtiwari110]

@aialok I have added the cache for next build, and have done the requested changes. Kindly check the same. Thanks!

[aialok]

@ayushtiwari110 see comments. Other than this everything LGTM : )

Thank You so much @ayushtiwari110 . It was really fun working with you.

cc : @benjagm please review : )

[ayushtiwari110]

@aialok The final requested changes have been implemented.
Thank you for your feedback throughout this pull request. I've also enjoyed collaborating with you on this PR! 🚀

@benjagm As alok mentioned, the changes are ready for your review. I appreciate your feedback on this :-)

[benjagm]

Amazing job with this one! Let's merge it!

[benjagm]

Is this resolving #340?

[ayushtiwari110]

@benjagm yes this PR is meant for #340

[DarhkVoyd]

@aialok @benjagm While reviewing another GitHub workflow PR, I have noticed that this workflow would fail each time a new dependency is added to the project. I believe it to be originating from this line.

yarn install --frozen-lockfile

[aialok]

@aialok @benjagm While reviewing another GitHub workflow PR, I have noticed that this workflow would fail each time a new dependency is added to the project. I believe it to be originating from this line.

yarn install --frozen-lockfile

Thank @DarhkVoyd for your review. But this will not happen because when you run yarn add without the --frozen-lock flag, Yarn will update the yarn.lock file if it needs to install new dependencies or update existing ones to satisfy the package requirements specified in package.json. This can lead to the yarn.lock file being modified, potentially causing discrepancies between development environments.

By using the --frozen-lock flag, you are essentially telling Yarn not to update the yarn.lock file during the installation process. This ensures that the exact versions of dependencies specified in the yarn.lock file are used, maintaining consistency across different environments and preventing unintended changes to dependencies.

As we are installing dependencies locally and then pushing them to GitHub, we already have an updated version of the yarn.lock file. Therefore, using the --frozen-lock flag will only install the dependencies specified in the yarn.lock file. This will not affect our Continuous Integration (CI) process.

If you have any question feel free to ping me : )

[DarhkVoyd]

Got it, my bad.