-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[No QA] [TS migration] Migrate 'cherryPick.test.js' and 'authorChecklist.test.js' workflow tests to TypeScript #38467
[No QA] [TS migration] Migrate 'cherryPick.test.js' and 'authorChecklist.test.js' workflow tests to TypeScript #38467
Conversation
# Conflicts: # package-lock.json # workflow_tests/authorChecklist.test.ts # workflow_tests/cherryPick.test.ts
Any updates here @VickyStash ? |
@fabioh8010 I'll put this one on hold till this PR is merged since it fixes some utils-related type inconsistency, which I've noticed after merging the latest main to resolve conflicts. |
@VickyStash Thanks, could you change PR title to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewer Checklist
- I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
- I verified the correct issue is linked in the
### Fixed Issues
section above - I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
Tests
section - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA steps
section - I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
- I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
- I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
- I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
- If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
- I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
toggleReport
and notonIconClick
). - I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g.
myBool && <MyComponent />
. - I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to
src/languages/*
files and using the translation method - I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in
STYLE.md
) were followed
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
- If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
- I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
- I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like
Avatar
, I verified the components usingAvatar
have been tested & I retested again) - I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
- I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
- If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a
/** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to
this
properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}
the methodthis.submit
should be bound tothis
in the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
this
are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);
ifthis.submit
is never passed to a component event handler likeonClick
) - All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
- If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
- If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e.
StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG
)
- If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
- If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like
Avatar
is modified, I verified thatAvatar
is working as expected in all cases) - If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
- If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
- If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added
Design
label and/or tagged@Expensify/design
so the design team can review the changes.
- If a new page is added, I verified it's using the
ScrollView
component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page. - If the
main
branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTest
steps. - I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.
Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop
We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #32057 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned! |
@cristipaval looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the |
all checks passed |
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
with?: string; | ||
envs?: string[]; | ||
inputs?: string[]; | ||
} & Omit<ActStepIdentifier, 'name' | 'id' | 'run' | 'mockWith'>; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
StepIdentifier
becomes any
because Omit<ActStepIdentifier, 'name' | 'id' | 'run' | 'mockWith'>
is of type any
too. Could you give some context why ActStepIdentifier
was used here? @VickyStash
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@blazejkustra see the explanation there, I've reused the approach of that PR to keep it consistent at that moment
Details
[TS migration] Migrate 'cherryPick.test.js' and 'authorChecklist.test.js' workflow tests to TypeScript
Fixed Issues
$ #32057
$ #32058
PROPOSAL: N/A
Tests
npm run workflow-test
Offline tests
N/A
QA Steps
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issues
section aboveTests
sectionOffline steps
sectionQA steps
sectiontoggleReport
and notonIconClick
)myBool && <MyComponent />
.src/languages/*
files and using the translation methodSTYLE.md
) were followedAvatar
, I verified the components usingAvatar
are working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
)Avatar
is modified, I verified thatAvatar
is working as expected in all cases)Design
label and/or tagged@Expensify/design
so the design team can review the changes.ScrollView
component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.main
branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTest
steps.