Add missing electrical role flags to pinAttributes by seveibar · Pull Request #839 · tscircuit/props

seveibar · 2026-09-09T22:54:28Z

Extend pinAttributes with missing electrical roles using the existing optional boolean pattern.

Add isInput, isOutput, isBidirectional, and isPassive.
Add canUseTriState / isUsingTriState, canUseOpenCollector / isUsingOpenCollector, and canUseOpenEmitter / isUsingOpenEmitter, following the existing drive-mode pattern.
Continue using requiresPower and providesPower for power input/output.

New fields preserve explicit true/false values and remain unset when omitted. No enum, aliases, inferred values, or cross-field validation are added. Existing attributes require no migration. Circuit JSON propagation and ERC conflict checking need downstream implementation.

Validation: 508 tests pass, including new flag parsing, rejection of non-booleans, isBidirectional support, existing-attribute compatibility, and compile-time checking. Type checking, formatting, package build, and all four required generation scripts pass.

graphite-app · 2026-09-09T22:56:39Z

+test.each([...electricalTypes])(
+  "chip preserves electricalType %s",
+  (electricalType) => {
+    const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { electricalType }
+    const parsed = chipProps.parse({
+      name: "U1",
+      pinAttributes: { pin1: attributes },
+    })
+    expect(parsed.pinAttributes?.pin1).toEqual(attributes)
+  },
+)
+
+test("electricalType is optional and does not change existing attributes", () => {
+  const pinAttributes: Record<string, PinAttributeMap> = {
+    pin1: {},
+    pin2: { requiresPower: true, requiresVoltage: "3.3V" },
+    pin3: { electricalType: "power_output", providesPower: true },
+    pin4: { electricalType: "free", doNotConnect: false },
+    pin5: { electricalType: "unspecified" },
+    pin6: { canUseOpenDrain: true, isUsingOpenDrain: true },
+    pin7: { doNotConnect: true },
+    // Classification is independent metadata, not a cross-field ERC validator.
+    pin8: { electricalType: "input", providesPower: true },
+  }
+  const parsed = chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes })
+  expect(parsed.pinAttributes).toEqual(pinAttributes)
+  expect(parsed.pinAttributes?.pin1).not.toHaveProperty("electricalType")
+  expect(chipProps.parse({ name: "U1" }).pinAttributes).toBeUndefined()
+})
+
+test.each(["invalid", "tri-state", "powerInput", "open_drain", "", null, 1])(
+  "rejects invalid electricalType %s",
+  (electricalType) => {
+    const result = chipProps.safeParse({
+      name: "U1",
+      pinAttributes: { pin1: { electricalType } },
+    })
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false)
+    if (!result.success) {
+      expect(result.error.issues[0]?.path).toEqual([
+        "pinAttributes",
+        "pin1",
+        "electricalType",
+      ])
+    }
+  },
+)
+
+test("electricalType rejects invalid values at compile time", () => {
+  // @ts-expect-error Only the documented electrical pin types are accepted.
+  const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { electricalType: "invalid" }
+  void attributes
+})


This file contains more than one test(...) call (lines 18, 30, 48, and 66), which violates the rule that a *.test.ts file may have AT MOST one test(...). Please split this into multiple numbered files, e.g. pinAttributes-electrical-type1.test.ts, pinAttributes-electrical-type2.test.ts, pinAttributes-electrical-type3.test.ts, and pinAttributes-electrical-type4.test.ts (or a similarly numbered scheme consistent with the project).

Spotted by Graphite (based on custom rule: Custom rule)

Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.

graphite-app · 2026-09-09T22:59:08Z

+import { expect, test } from "bun:test"
+import { chipProps, type PinAttributeMap } from "lib"
+
+const electricalFlags = [
+  "isInput",
+  "isOutput",
+  "isPassive",
+  "isFree",
+  "isUnspecified",
+  "canUseTriState",
+  "isUsingTriState",
+  "canUseOpenCollector",
+  "isUsingOpenCollector",
+  "canUseOpenEmitter",
+  "isUsingOpenEmitter",
+] as const satisfies readonly (keyof PinAttributeMap)[]
+
+test.each([...electricalFlags])(
+  "chip preserves true and false for %s",
+  (flag) => {
+    for (const value of [true, false]) {
+      const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { [flag]: value }
+      expect(
+        chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes: { pin1: attributes } })
+          .pinAttributes?.pin1,
+      ).toEqual(attributes)
+    }
+  },
+)
+
+test.each([...electricalFlags])("rejects non-boolean values for %s", (flag) => {
+  for (const value of ["true", 1, null]) {
+    const result = chipProps.safeParse({
+      name: "U1",
+      pinAttributes: { pin1: { [flag]: value } },
+    })
+    expect(result.success).toBe(false)
+    if (!result.success) {
+      expect(result.error.issues[0]?.path).toEqual([
+        "pinAttributes",
+        "pin1",
+        flag,
+      ])
+    }
+  }
+})
+
+test("electrical flags compose with existing attributes without inferred defaults", () => {
+  const pinAttributes: Record<string, PinAttributeMap> = {
+    pin1: {},
+    pin2: { isInput: true, isOutput: true, isGpio: true },
+    pin3: { requiresPower: true, requiresVoltage: "3.3V" },
+    pin4: { providesPower: true },
+    pin5: { isOutput: true, canUseTriState: true, isUsingTriState: false },
+    pin6: { isFree: true, doNotConnect: false },
+    pin7: { isUnspecified: true },
+    pin8: { isPassive: true },
+    pin9: {
+      isOutput: true,
+      canUseOpenCollector: true,
+      isUsingOpenCollector: true,
+    },
+    pin10: {
+      isOutput: true,
+      canUseOpenEmitter: true,
+      isUsingOpenEmitter: true,
+    },
+    pin11: { canUseOpenDrain: true, isUsingOpenDrain: true },
+    pin12: { doNotConnect: true },
+  }
+  expect(chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes }).pinAttributes).toEqual(
+    pinAttributes,
+  )
+  expect(chipProps.parse({ name: "U1" }).pinAttributes).toBeUndefined()
+})
+
+test("electrical flags are boolean at compile time", () => {
+  // @ts-expect-error Electrical flags accept booleans only.
+  const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { isInput: "true" }
+  void attributes
+})


This file contains more than one test(...) call. The style guide rule states that a *.test.ts file may have AT MOST one test(...). This file has four test invocations: two test.each(...) calls (lines 18 and 31) and two plain test(...) calls (lines 48 and 77). These should be split into multiple numbered files, e.g. pinAttributes-electrical-flags1.test.ts, pinAttributes-electrical-flags2.test.ts, etc.

Suggested change

import { expect, test } from "bun:test"

import { chipProps, type PinAttributeMap } from "lib"

const electricalFlags = [

"isInput",

"isOutput",

"isPassive",

"isFree",

"isUnspecified",

"canUseTriState",

"isUsingTriState",

"canUseOpenCollector",

"isUsingOpenCollector",

"canUseOpenEmitter",

"isUsingOpenEmitter",

] as const satisfies readonly (keyof PinAttributeMap)[]

test.each([...electricalFlags])(

"chip preserves true and false for %s",

(flag) => {

for (const value of [true, false]) {

const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { [flag]: value }

expect(

chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes: { pin1: attributes } })

.pinAttributes?.pin1,

).toEqual(attributes)

}

},

)

test.each([...electricalFlags])("rejects non-boolean values for %s", (flag) => {

for (const value of ["true", 1, null]) {

const result = chipProps.safeParse({

name: "U1",

pinAttributes: { pin1: { [flag]: value } },

})

expect(result.success).toBe(false)

if (!result.success) {

expect(result.error.issues[0]?.path).toEqual([

"pinAttributes",

"pin1",

flag,

])

}

}

})

test("electrical flags compose with existing attributes without inferred defaults", () => {

const pinAttributes: Record<string, PinAttributeMap> = {

pin1: {},

pin2: { isInput: true, isOutput: true, isGpio: true },

pin3: { requiresPower: true, requiresVoltage: "3.3V" },

pin4: { providesPower: true },

pin5: { isOutput: true, canUseTriState: true, isUsingTriState: false },

pin6: { isFree: true, doNotConnect: false },

pin7: { isUnspecified: true },

pin8: { isPassive: true },

pin9: {

isOutput: true,

canUseOpenCollector: true,

isUsingOpenCollector: true,

},

pin10: {

isOutput: true,

canUseOpenEmitter: true,

isUsingOpenEmitter: true,

},

pin11: { canUseOpenDrain: true, isUsingOpenDrain: true },

pin12: { doNotConnect: true },

}

expect(chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes }).pinAttributes).toEqual(

pinAttributes,

)

expect(chipProps.parse({ name: "U1" }).pinAttributes).toBeUndefined()

})

test("electrical flags are boolean at compile time", () => {

// @ts-expect-error Electrical flags accept booleans only.

const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { isInput: "true" }

void attributes

})

import { expect, test } from "bun:test"

import { chipProps, type PinAttributeMap } from "lib"

const electricalFlags = [

"isInput",

"isOutput",

"isPassive",

"isFree",

"isUnspecified",

"canUseTriState",

"isUsingTriState",

"canUseOpenCollector",

"isUsingOpenCollector",

"canUseOpenEmitter",

"isUsingOpenEmitter",

] as const satisfies readonly (keyof PinAttributeMap)[]

test.each([...electricalFlags])(

"chip preserves true and false for %s",

(flag) => {

for (const value of [true, false]) {

const attributes: PinAttributeMap = { [flag]: value }

expect(

chipProps.parse({ name: "U1", pinAttributes: { pin1: attributes } })

.pinAttributes?.pin1,

).toEqual(attributes)

}

},

)

Spotted by Graphite (based on custom rule: Custom rule)

Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.

graphite-app · 2026-09-09T23:02:45Z

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+import { expect, test } from "bun:test"


The file name pinAttributes-electrical-flags.test.ts mixes camelCase and kebab-case (the pinAttributes prefix is camelCase while the rest uses kebab-case). File names should be consistent with the project convention — typically fully kebab-case. It should be renamed to something like pin-attributes-electrical-flags.test.ts (and then split into numbered files per the one-test-per-file rule).

Spotted by Graphite (based on custom rule: Custom rule)

Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.

graphite-app · 2026-09-09T23:02:46Z

  recommendedDecouplingCapacitorCapacitance?: string | number
  isGpio?: boolean
 }
+/** Whether the pin is configured as an open-emitter output. */


Orphaned JSDoc comment is placed before the schema declaration instead of being attached to a field. This comment /** Whether the pin is configured as an open-emitter output. */ appears to belong to the isUsingOpenEmitter field but is separated from it. It should either be removed (since documentation already exists in PROPS_OVERVIEW.md) or moved to the appropriate field location:

export const pinAttributeMap = z.object({ // ... other fields ... /** Whether the pin is configured as an open-emitter output. */ isUsingOpenEmitter: z.boolean().optional(), // ... })

Currently, this misplaced comment may cause documentation generators to associate it with the entire pinAttributeMap object, which is incorrect.

Spotted by Graphite

Is this helpful? React 👍 or 👎 to let us know.

tscircuitbot · 2026-09-10T18:03:39Z

Thank you for your contribution! 🎉

PR Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
Impact: Major

Track your contributions and see the leaderboard at: tscircuit Contribution Tracker

feat: add electrical pin types to pin attributes

4b89995

graphite-app Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Use existing boolean pin attribute pattern for electrical roles

6e8f710

seveibar changed the title ~~Add electrical pin types to pinAttributes~~ Add missing electrical role flags to pinAttributes Sep 9, 2026

graphite-app Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add isBidirectional and remove free and unspecified flags

44ba15c

graphite-app Bot reviewed Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

seveibar merged commit 9b6cfe1 into main Sep 9, 2026
5 checks passed

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Add missing electrical role flags to pinAttributes - #839

Add missing electrical role flags to pinAttributes#839
seveibar merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
feat/pin-attributes-electrical-type

seveibar commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tscircuitbot commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

seveibar commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

graphite-app Bot Sep 9, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tscircuitbot commented Sep 10, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

seveibar commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading