[TS migration][No QA] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript #38225

BrtqKr · 2024-03-13T13:05:59Z

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #32061

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

melvin-bot · 2024-03-13T13:06:04Z

@s77rt 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]

github-actions · 2024-03-13T13:06:16Z

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

BrtqKr · 2024-03-13T13:07:21Z

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

s77rt · 2024-03-13T13:18:44Z

@BrtqKr Please tag me once this is ready for review

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

blazejkustra · 2024-03-13T13:18:31Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

+    expectedOutput = null,
+    jobId: string | null = null,
+    message: string | null = null,
+    // Replace arrays with records


Expensify tend to avoid TODOs in the code, I'm fine with it, just a little nit.

// Replace arrays with records

However I agree we could refactor this, as it seems weird to have an array here

workflow_tests/utils/preGenerateTest.ts

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

blazejkustra

LGTM!

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:28:37Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

+    // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return
    return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(originalObject));


Wdyt?

Suggested change

// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return

return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(originalObject));

return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(originalObject)) as TObject;

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:30:37Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

@@ -113,7 +149,7 @@ function createStepAssertion(name, isSuccessful = true, expectedOutput = null, j
    };
 }

-function setJobRunners(act, jobs, workflowPath) {
+function setJobRunners(act: ExtendedAct, jobs: Record<string, string>, workflowPath: string) {


Please add return type

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:36:46Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

+    event: string | null = null,
+    eventOptions: EventOptions | null = null,
+    secrets: Record<string, string> | null = null,
+    githubToken: string | null = null,
+    envVars: Record<string, string> | null = null,
+    inputs: Record<string, string> | null = null,


What do you think about making this params optional instead of defaulting to null? I've checked the function logic and it looks like it should be okay.

Suggested change

event: string | null = null,

eventOptions: EventOptions | null = null,

secrets: Record<string, string> | null = null,

githubToken: string | null = null,

envVars: Record<string, string> | null = null,

inputs: Record<string, string> | null = null,

event?: string,

eventOptions?: EventOptions,

secrets?: Record<string, string>,

githubToken?: string,

envVars?: Record<string, string>,

inputs?: Record<string, string>,

If we want to clean this up I'd go with named params - that way marking them as optional would make more sense. Right now there are a lot of cases where this function gets a null just to maintain the order of the params and I'd like to avoid changing anything in the places where it is being referenced. Nonetheless, I would keep it for the other pull request, because there are a lot of things that require refactoring.

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:36:57Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

+    githubToken: string | null = null,
+    envVars: Record<string, string> | null = null,
+    inputs: Record<string, string> | null = null,
+) {


Please add return value

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:39:23Z

workflow_tests/utils/utils.ts

+    jobId: string | null = null,
+    inputs: string[] | null = null,
+    inEnvs: string[] | null = null,
+    outputs: Record<string, string> | null = null,
+    outEnvs: Record<string, string> | null = null,


Same

Suggested change

jobId: string | null = null,

inputs: string[] | null = null,

inEnvs: string[] | null = null,

outputs: Record<string, string> | null = null,

outEnvs: Record<string, string> | null = null,

jobId?: string,

inputs?: string[],

inEnvs?: string[],

outputs?: Record<string, string>,

outEnvs?: Record<string, string>,

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:55:23Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+        if (opts?.actor) {
+            actArguments.push('--actor', opts.actor);
+        }
+        return {cwd, actArguments, proxy};


Suggested change

return {cwd, actArguments, proxy};

return {cwd, actArguments, proxy};

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:55:32Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+        if (mockJobs) {
+            await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: opts?.workflowFile, cwd: opts?.cwd});
+        }
+        return super.runEvent(event, vanillaOpts);


Suggested change

return super.runEvent(event, vanillaOpts);

return super.runEvent(event, vanillaOpts);

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:55:46Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+
+    async handleJobMocking(filter: (workflow: Workflow) => boolean, opts?: ExtendedActOpts) {
+        let workflowFiles: string[];
+        if (opts?.workflowFile) {


Suggested change

if (opts?.workflowFile) {

if (opts?.workflowFile) {

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:56:00Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+        }
+        return Promise.all(


Suggested change

}

return Promise.all(

}

return Promise.all(

VickyStash · 2024-03-14T16:56:49Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+
+// @ts-expect-error Override shouldn't be done on private methods wait until https://github.com/kiegroup/act-js/issues/77 is resolved or try to create a params workaround
+class ExtendedAct extends kieActJs.Act {
+    async parseRunOpts(opts?: ExtendedActOpts) {


Add return type for all functions in this file please

BrtqKr · 2024-03-18T08:58:50Z

@s77rt it's ready 🙏

s77rt

Partial review

s77rt · 2024-03-19T00:30:24Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+type ExtendedActOpts = RunOpts & {actor?: string; workflowFile?: string; mockJobs?: MockJobs};
+
+type ActOptions = {
+    cwd: string | undefined;


Suggested change

cwd: string | undefined;

cwd: string;

parseRunOpts will always return.a cwd

s77rt · 2024-03-19T00:39:06Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+        const {mockJobs, ...vanillaOpts} = opts ?? {};
+
+        if (mockJobs) {
+            await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: opts?.workflowFile, cwd: opts?.cwd});


Suggested change

await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: opts?.workflowFile, cwd: opts?.cwd});

await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: vanillaOpts.workflowFile, cwd: vanillaOpts.cwd});

To avoid the unnecessary optional chaining

s77rt · 2024-03-19T00:47:42Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+/* eslint-disable @typescript-eslint/dot-notation */
+// This eslint-disable comment is here to allow accessing private properties in the Act class


Disable the lint rule per line (use eslint-disable-next-line)

I'm not convinced. This is not something we'd like to restrict in this file, because it stems from the workaround we had to apply to access any private properties from the parent class. I'd keep it until it gets resolved on the library level.

s77rt · 2024-03-19T01:02:44Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+import type {RunOpts, Workflow} from '@kie/act-js';
+import * as kieActJs from '@kie/act-js';


Suggested change

import type {RunOpts, Workflow} from '@kie/act-js';

import * as kieActJs from '@kie/act-js';

import type {RunOpts, Workflow, Step} from '@kie/act-js';

import {Act} from '@kie/act-js';

s77rt · 2024-03-19T01:08:43Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

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


Suggested change

// eslint-disable-next-line import/prefer-default-export

export {ExtendedAct};

export default ExtendedAct;

s77rt · 2024-03-19T01:09:53Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

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


Now that we are using ESM (instead of CommonJS) we need to update the rest of CommonJS files that use that file, e.g. in test files we need to change the require statement from

const eAct = require('./utils/ExtendedAct');

to:

const eAct = require('./utils/ExtendedAct').default;

s77rt · 2024-03-19T02:10:51Z

workflow_tests/utils/JobMocker.ts

        this.workflowFile = workflowFile;
        this.cwd = cwd;
    }

-    async mock(mockJobs) {
+    mock(mockJobs: MockJobs = {}) {


Suggested change

mock(mockJobs: MockJobs = {}) {

mock(mockJobs: MockJobs) {

We don't know if mockJobs will be present, so making a fallback on the mock function level seems like a good option 🤷

s77rt · 2024-03-19T02:19:05Z

workflow_tests/utils/JobMocker.ts

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


Same notes as ExtendedAct

s77rt · 2024-03-19T02:49:07Z

workflow_tests/utils/ExtendedAct.ts

+        return Promise.all(
+            workflowFiles.map((workflowFile) => {
+                const jobMocker = new JobMocker(workflowFile, opts?.cwd ?? this['cwd']);
+                return jobMocker.mock(opts?.mockJobs);
+            }),
+        );


Suggested change

return Promise.all(

workflowFiles.map((workflowFile) => {

const jobMocker = new JobMocker(workflowFile, opts?.cwd ?? this['cwd']);

return jobMocker.mock(opts?.mockJobs);

}),

);

workflowFiles.map((workflowFile) => {

const jobMocker = new JobMocker(workflowFile, opts?.cwd ?? this['cwd']);

return jobMocker.mock(opts?.mockJobs ?? {});

});

jobMocker.mock is sync now

s77rt · 2024-03-19T02:55:37Z

workflow_tests/utils/JobMocker.ts

+    secrets?: string[];
+    with?: string;
+    outputs?: string[];
+    runsOn: string;


Suggested change

runsOn: string;

runsOn?: string;

Since we have if (mockJob.runsOn) { I'm assuming this prop is optional

s77rt · 2024-03-19T03:05:22Z

Looks we have conflicts. Please resolve

blazejkustra · 2024-03-19T07:17:25Z

@s77rt I think we don't need C+ review for tests migrations. Sorry for the confusion 🙇‍♂️

@BrtqKr You can add [No QA] label to the PR title

melvin-bot · 2024-03-19T15:53:29Z

We did not find an internal engineer to review this PR, trying to assign a random engineer to #32061 as well as to this PR... Please reach out for help on Slack if no one gets assigned!

hayata-suenaga

🟢

hayata-suenaga · 2024-03-19T18:27:57Z

@s77rt please complete the reviewer checklist when you have time 🙇

blazejkustra · 2024-03-19T18:39:47Z

@hayata-suenaga There was an agreement that tests don't need a review and checklist from C+, or you mean to post an empty checklist?

hayata-suenaga · 2024-03-19T18:48:43Z

yes that was my understanding but @s77rt apparently did a review (there are several review comments), so I assumed this PR was deemed to need C+ review 😄

hayata-suenaga · 2024-03-19T18:50:35Z

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 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 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 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.
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

hayata-suenaga · 2024-03-19T18:58:40Z

Screen.Recording.2024-03-19.at.11.57.47.AM.mov

I got this error
@blazejkustra could you check this error is not from this PR?

blazejkustra · 2024-03-19T19:32:54Z

@hayata-suenaga This Pr touches workflow tests only, so I don't think this could originate from this PR 🤔

blazejkustra · 2024-03-19T19:33:55Z

yes that was my understanding but @s77rt apparently did a review (there are several review comments), so I assumed this PR was deemed to need C+ review 😄

It was a misunderstanding as described here, sorry!

melvin-bot · 2024-03-19T22:29:35Z

@hayata-suenaga looks like this was merged without a test passing. Please add a note explaining why this was done and remove the Emergency label if this is not an emergency.

hayata-suenaga · 2024-03-19T22:32:16Z

all the tests were passing. this is Melvin acting up 🤔

OSBotify · 2024-03-19T22:36:37Z

✋ 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 · 2024-03-19T23:51:01Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.4.55-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-03-20T00:51:36Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/hayata-suenaga in version: 1.4.55-0 🚀

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

OSBotify · 2024-03-22T16:10:23Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 1.4.55-3 🚀

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

BrtqKr added 4 commits March 12, 2024 14:51

migrate workflow_tests/utils files

5460b54

cleanup

9c196a4

config jest ts

d6fcd10

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

6a9dffe

BrtqKr requested a review from a team as a code owner March 13, 2024 13:05

melvin-bot bot requested review from s77rt and removed request for a team March 13, 2024 13:06

BrtqKr marked this pull request as draft March 13, 2024 13:16

blazejkustra suggested changes Mar 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

review fixes

3e5fe1d

BrtqKr requested a review from blazejkustra March 13, 2024 14:55

revert deepCopy signature

f0719b2

blazejkustra approved these changes Mar 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr added 2 commits March 13, 2024 21:20

fix StepIdentifier type

3776262

adjust createMockStep

161c43d

pasyukevich mentioned this pull request Mar 14, 2024

[TS migration] Migrate 'mocks' workflow test to TypeScript #32059 #38288

Merged

51 tasks

VickyStash reviewed Mar 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr added 2 commits March 15, 2024 17:07

review fixes

9327009

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

807b0f6

BrtqKr requested a review from VickyStash March 15, 2024 16:43

VickyStash approved these changes Mar 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2024 08:58

s77rt suggested changes Mar 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

BrtqKr changed the title ~~[TS migration] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript~~ [TS migration][No QA] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript Mar 19, 2024

BrtqKr added 2 commits March 19, 2024 11:31

review fixes

0df3315

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

2fc3d2a

BrtqKr requested a review from s77rt March 19, 2024 10:53

s77rt approved these changes Mar 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

melvin-bot bot requested a review from hayata-suenaga March 19, 2024 15:54

hayata-suenaga approved these changes Mar 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

hayata-suenaga merged commit 2fb3c50 into Expensify:main Mar 19, 2024
17 of 19 checks passed

melvin-bot bot added the Emergency label Mar 19, 2024

hayata-suenaga removed the Emergency label Mar 19, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-03-19 #38651

Closed

66 tasks

melvin-bot bot mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-03-29] [TS migration] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript #32061

Closed

		// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return
		return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(originalObject));

	return {cwd, actArguments, proxy};

	return {cwd, actArguments, proxy};

	return super.runEvent(event, vanillaOpts);

	return super.runEvent(event, vanillaOpts);

	await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: opts?.workflowFile, cwd: opts?.cwd});
	await this.handleJobMocking((workflow) => workflow.events.includes(event), {mockJobs, workflowFile: vanillaOpts.workflowFile, cwd: vanillaOpts.cwd});

		/* eslint-disable @typescript-eslint/dot-notation */
		// This eslint-disable comment is here to allow accessing private properties in the Act class

		import type {RunOpts, Workflow} from '@kie/act-js';
		import * as kieActJs from '@kie/act-js';

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

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

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

[TS migration][No QA] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript #38225

[TS migration][No QA] Migrate 'utils' workflow test to TypeScript #38225

Conversation

BrtqKr commented Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 13, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

BrtqKr commented Mar 13, 2024

s77rt commented Mar 13, 2024

blazejkustra Mar 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

blazejkustra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BrtqKr Mar 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BrtqKr commented Mar 18, 2024

s77rt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

s77rt Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

s77rt commented Mar 19, 2024

blazejkustra commented Mar 19, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 19, 2024

hayata-suenaga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024

blazejkustra commented Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024

blazejkustra commented Mar 19, 2024

blazejkustra commented Mar 19, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Mar 19, 2024

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 19, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 20, 2024

OSBotify commented Mar 22, 2024

BrtqKr commented Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

blazejkustra Mar 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

BrtqKr Mar 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

s77rt Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

blazejkustra commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

hayata-suenaga commented Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading