Add typescript/ts/tsx extension as a playground languages

[mitsuruog]

Resolve:

• Code example does not render when the code block has tsx padded Code example does not render when the code block has tsx padded #1542

I added typescript, ts, tsx as a playground language.

It might make breaking current behavior.
it's up to you whichever it goes to the current version or next major version.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1543 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/loaders/utils/chunkify.ts	91.66% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

[sapegin]

Thanks for the pull request! I've left couple of minor comments, and we can release it with 11.0, which is kinda ready in a branch now.

[sapegin]

Let's avoid a snapshot here: it's hard to see if it's correct or not.

[mitsuruog]

so should I write the test something like this?

const expected = [
  // expected result here
];
const actual = chunkify(markdown);
expect(actual).toEqual(expected);

[sapegin]

Here you can check all of the chunks, except the first one, have the code type — that's the intent of the test. With a snapshot, it's impossible to tell what was the intent and whether it's correct.

[mitsuruog]

@sapegin I updated my test code. please review me again.

[mitsuruog]

@sapegin I updated my test code. please review me again.

[sapegin]

Why not something like, so the test intent is actually clear?

Suggested change

	expect(actual).toEqual(expected);
	expect(actual.slice(1).every(chunk => chunk.type === 'code')).toBe(true)

Not it's exactly the same as it was with a snapshot.

[mitsuruog]

I don't copy as is what the snapshot did. I thought the current tests also can test for not playground extensions.
but I would like to follow your suggestion.

[sapegin]

I didn't say you've copied but essentially it does the same.

[mitsuruog]

@sapegin I updated my test code. please review me again.

[sapegin]

The idea is not to have a snapshot. Please have a look at my suggestion in my previous comment.

[mitsuruog]

I was misunderstood what you said. but now it is clear. thank you.
Previous tests compared objects with each other. That didn't tell exactly which point was testing.
but now I can see that your suggestion clearly checks only the code part.

@sapegin thank you for many times review.

[sapegin]

Thanks!

[sapegin]

Merged manually to 11 branch: 5975c7c