[TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript by ruben-rebelo · Pull Request #37084 · Expensify/App

ruben-rebelo · 2024-02-22T14:40:01Z

Details

[TS migration] Migrate *awaitStagingDeploysTest to TypeScript

Fixed Issues

$ #25299
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console
Run awaitStagingDeploysTest unit test works as before

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Same as in the Tests section.

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover 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 tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (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 not onIconClick)
- 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
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- 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 approved by marketing by adding the Waiting for Copy label for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.
- 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
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
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
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
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 that Avatar 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 form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label 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 the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

N/a

Android: mWeb Chrome

N/a

iOS: Native

N/a

iOS: mWeb Safari

N/a

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

N/a

MacOS: Desktop

N/a

blazejkustra · 2024-02-27T17:38:50Z

    const defaultReturn = Promise.resolve({data: {workflow_runs: []}});

-    if (!_.has(args, 'workflow_id')) {
+    if (!args.workflow_id) {


The logic is a bit different, this is more accurate:

if (!('workflow_id' in args)) {

But the suggested change should work, right?

blazejkustra · 2024-02-27T17:39:04Z

        },
    };
+
+    // @ts-expect-error TODO: Remove this once GithubUtils (https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/25382) is migrated to TypeScript.


Let's hold this PR for now

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-28T08:42:08Z

@ruben-rebelo This PR is not on hold anymore, let's move with it to the finish line!

…okit

ruben-rebelo · 2024-03-28T14:19:58Z

@blazejkustra I've updated this PR, please have a look

blazejkustra · 2024-03-28T15:20:24Z

-    const moctokit = {
+    const moctokit: InternalOctokit = {
        rest: {
+            // @ts-expect-error This error was removed because getting the rest of the data from internalOctokit makes the test to break


Why is this needed?

This is needed because InternalOctoKit requires all the data of the object to be passed but in this case for the unit tests we shall only pass listWorkflowRuns otherwise it will break the test

blazejkustra · 2024-03-29T08:55:47Z

@ruben-rebelo FYI Typecheck is failing

melvin-bot · 2024-03-29T16:01:31Z

@paultsimura Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

paultsimura

Test files migration. Approving ✔️

melvin-bot · 2024-03-29T17:27:40Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #25299 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

marcaaron · 2024-03-30T01:07:39Z

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 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 not onIconClick).
- 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
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 using Avatar 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. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- 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 that Avatar 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 the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

❌ internal tooling

OSBotify · 2024-03-30T01:16:05Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2024-04-02T11:14:03Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.59-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-04-08T10:54:08Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Julesssss in version: 1.4.60-13 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

[TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript

ffbe73a

fabioh8010 approved these changes Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

blazejkustra approved these changes Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

ruben-rebelo changed the title ~~[TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript~~ [ON HOLD #25382][TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript Mar 11, 2024

ruben-rebelo added 2 commits March 28, 2024 12:34

Merge branch 'main' into ts-migration/unit-awaitStagingDeploysTest

760b75e

[TS migration][awaitStagingDeploysTest] Removed expect error from oct…

0bb481d

…okit

ruben-rebelo changed the title ~~[ON HOLD #25382][TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript~~ [TS migration] Migrate awaitStagingDeploysTest to Typescript Mar 28, 2024

ruben-rebelo added 2 commits March 28, 2024 14:16

Merge branch 'main' into ts-migration/unit-awaitStagingDeploysTest

2835706

[TS migration][awaitStagingDeploysTest] Generated github utils

887bfcd

blazejkustra approved these changes Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

blazejkustra reviewed Mar 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

ruben-rebelo added 2 commits March 29, 2024 15:57

Merge branch 'main' into ts-migration/unit-awaitStagingDeploysTest

b0ab451

[TS migration] Removed AsMutable old file

5e8d0ee

ruben-rebelo marked this pull request as ready for review March 29, 2024 16:01

ruben-rebelo requested a review from a team as a code owner March 29, 2024 16:01

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team March 29, 2024 16:01

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from paultsimura March 29, 2024 16:01

paultsimura approved these changes Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from marcaaron March 29, 2024 17:27

marcaaron approved these changes Mar 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit edacb67 into Expensify:main Mar 30, 2024

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 2, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-04-02 #39399

Closed

87 tasks done

melvin-bot Bot mentioned this pull request Apr 8, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-04-15] [TS migration] Migrate 'awaitStagingDeploysTest.js' test to TypeScript #25299

Closed

Conversation

ruben-rebelo commented Feb 22, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

blazejkustra Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

blazejkustra Feb 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabioh8010 commented Mar 28, 2024

Uh oh!

ruben-rebelo commented Mar 28, 2024

Uh oh!

blazejkustra Mar 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ruben-rebelo Mar 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

blazejkustra commented Mar 29, 2024

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 29, 2024

Uh oh!

paultsimura left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Mar 29, 2024

Uh oh!

marcaaron commented Mar 30, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Mar 30, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 2, 2024

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Apr 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

ruben-rebelo commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron commented Mar 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading