[No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript #38664

BrtqKr · 2024-03-20T11:34:24Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #32060

PROPOSAL:

Tests

npm run workflow-test

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

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 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 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 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.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

…ation/assertions

BrtqKr · 2024-03-20T11:45:08Z

workflow_tests/assertions/verifySignedCommitsAssertions.ts

+// eslint-disable-next-line import/prefer-default-export
+export {assertVerifySignedCommitsJobExecuted};


some of the files in this directory are pre-generated, so to keep the interface uniform I'd rather keep it this way instead of differentiating between export default and export {...}

melvin-bot · 2024-03-20T11:52:18Z

@jjcoffee 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]

blazejkustra · 2024-03-20T13:49:10Z

workflow_tests/utils/preGenerateTest.ts

 };

 const assertionsExportsTemplate = (jobAssertions: string[]): string => {
-    const assertionsString = jobAssertions.map((assertion) => `  ${assertion}: ${assertion}`).join(',\n');


Can you explain reasoning behind this change?

It was doubling the names in exports, which resulted in errors inside the generated files. Added comment

blazejkustra · 2024-03-20T14:02:48Z

PR Author checklist is failing, you need to click on one more checkbox @BrtqKr

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-21T15:45:20Z

workflow_tests/assertions/authorChecklistAssertions.ts

+    const steps = [
+        createStepAssertion('Checkout', true, null, 'CHECKLIST', 'Checkout'),
+        createStepAssertion('authorChecklist.ts', true, null, 'CHECKLIST', 'Running authorChecklist.ts', [{key: 'GITHUB_TOKEN', value: '***'}], []),
+    ];


Suggested change

];

] as const;

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-21T15:55:38Z

workflow_tests/assertions/createNewVersionAssertions.ts

-};
-const assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted = (workflowResult, semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) => {
+}
+function assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted(workflowResult: Step[], semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) {


Suggested change

function assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted(workflowResult: Step[], semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) {

function assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted(workflowResult: Step[], semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) {

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-21T16:01:58Z

workflow_tests/utils/preGenerateTest.ts

@@ -87,7 +81,7 @@ describe('test workflow ${workflowName}', () => {
        };
        const result = await act
            .runEvent('[EVENT]', {
-                workflowFile: path.join(repoPath, '.github', 'workflows'),
+                workflowFile: path.join(repoPath, '.github', 'workflows', '${workflowName}.yml'),


Why this change?

Because otherwise, it was generating a template that wouldn't work from the beginning. This script has been created as a helper for creating new workflow templates, but wasn't well maintained, I've adjusted this to the typescript, with a couple of improvements.

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-21T16:03:38Z

Also @BrtqKr let's change the PR title to [No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript, [No QA] must come first 🙂

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-25T17:07:15Z

@jjcoffee kind bump 🙂

fabioh8010 · 2024-03-26T07:09:22Z

Also @BrtqKr we got conflicts here

jjcoffee · 2024-03-26T11:30:08Z

@fabioh8010 Waiting for this to come out of draft 🙏

BrtqKr · 2024-03-26T12:44:21Z

@jjcoffee sorry for turning it back into a draft, but some of the tests stopped working after merging main, now it should be fine 🙏

jjcoffee

Blindly approving.

melvin-bot · 2024-03-26T13:28:03Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #32060 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

jjcoffee · 2024-03-26T13:29:46Z

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

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

OSBotify · 2024-03-26T17:36:19Z

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

BrtqKr added 7 commits March 18, 2024 13:52

migrate assertions files

a7476c8

generate wip

e98489b

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/ts-migration/utils' into ts-migr…

e00085b

…ation/assertions

fix preGenerate wip

8279d23

fix preGenerate

dde9a7b

fix route for github actions file

2b2cc72

remove logs

1382516

BrtqKr commented Mar 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr added 2 commits March 20, 2024 12:49

adjust templates for pre-generate

d16f27a

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ts-migration/assertions

aaef6b9

BrtqKr marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2024 11:52

BrtqKr requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 11:52

melvin-bot bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team March 20, 2024 11:52

BrtqKr marked this pull request as draft March 20, 2024 12:37

blazejkustra approved these changes Mar 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

add comment

0d8f38f

fabioh8010 reviewed Mar 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

VickyStash mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2024

[No QA] [TS migration] Migrate 'test.test.js', 'reviewerChecklist.test.js', 'preDeploy.test.js', 'platformDeploy.test.js', 'lockDeploys.test.js' workflow test to TypeScript #38045

Merged

50 tasks

BrtqKr changed the title ~~[TS migration][No QA] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript~~ [No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript Mar 22, 2024

review fixes

37ecc9d

BrtqKr requested a review from fabioh8010 March 22, 2024 09:44

fabioh8010 approved these changes Mar 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr marked this pull request as ready for review March 25, 2024 08:52

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ts-migration/assertions

c8f8b42

BrtqKr added 2 commits March 26, 2024 10:28

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ts-migration/assertions

2f2f545

fix ts

d324829

BrtqKr marked this pull request as draft March 26, 2024 10:57

fix tests

e7eb08b

BrtqKr marked this pull request as ready for review March 26, 2024 12:44

jjcoffee approved these changes Mar 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from aldo-expensify March 26, 2024 13:28

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ts-migration/assertions

431dc3f

aldo-expensify approved these changes Mar 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

aldo-expensify merged commit fed9d6c into Expensify:main Mar 26, 2024
16 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-27 #39033

Closed

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-04-05] [TS migration] Migrate 'assertions' workflow test to TypeScript #32060

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript #38664

[No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript #38664

BrtqKr commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BrtqKr Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

blazejkustra Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BrtqKr Mar 20, 2024

blazejkustra commented Mar 20, 2024

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

BrtqKr Mar 22, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 21, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 25, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BrtqKr commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee left a comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

OSBotify commented Mar 26, 2024

		// eslint-disable-next-line import/prefer-default-export
		export {assertVerifySignedCommitsJobExecuted};

	function assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted(workflowResult: Step[], semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) {

	function assertCreateNewVersionJobExecuted(workflowResult: Step[], semverLevel = 'BUILD', didExecute = true, isSuccessful = true) {

[No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript #38664

[No QA][TS migration] Migrate workflow_tests assertions to TypeScript #38664

Conversation

BrtqKr commented Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

BrtqKr Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

blazejkustra Mar 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BrtqKr Mar 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

blazejkustra commented Mar 20, 2024

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabioh8010 Mar 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BrtqKr Mar 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fabioh8010 commented Mar 21, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 25, 2024

fabioh8010 commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 • edited Loading

BrtqKr commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 26, 2024

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

OSBotify commented Mar 26, 2024

BrtqKr commented Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BrtqKr Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

blazejkustra Mar 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

jjcoffee commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading