[HOLD for payment 2024-06-20] [HOLD for payment 2024-06-18] [$250] [TS Migration] Standartize between Boolean or !!

[mountiny]

Follow up issue for TS migration project. Coming from this spreadsheet

Standartize between Boolean or !!

Lets pick the one which can be enforced with eslint

Any more details for this one cc @blazejkustra @fabioh8010

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01111a2979f5f2ac8c
• Upwork Job ID: 1780333266166345728
• Last Price Increase: 2024-04-16
• Automatic offers:
• ishpaul777 | Contributor | 0
• ShridharGoel | Contributor | 0

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @CortneyOfstad

[ShridharGoel]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Standardise between Boolean or !!.

What is the root cause of that problem?

New check using ESlint.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Slack discussion: https://expensify.enterprise.slack.com/archives/C01GTK53T8Q/p1713329747825759. Looks like we want to go ahead with !!, so the check can look like this:

module.exports = {
    create: function(context) {
        return {
            CallExpression: function(node) {
                if (node.callee.type === "Identifier" && node.callee.name === "Boolean" && node.arguments.length === 1) {
                    context.report({
                        node: node,
                        message: "Use !! instead of Boolean",
                        fix: function(fixer) {
                            const sourceCode = context.getSourceCode();
                            const argumentText = sourceCode.getText(node.arguments[0]);
                            return fixer.replaceText(node, `!!${argumentText}`);
                        }
                    });
                }
            }
        };
    }
};

[melvin-bot]

10 days overdue. Is anyone even seeing these? Hello?

[ShridharGoel]

@mountiny Can we pick this since TS migration is almost done? I've sent a proposal above.

[blazejkustra]

@ShridharGoel Not yet, let's wait until migration is fully finished

[melvin-bot]

12 days overdue. Walking. Toward. The. Light...

[fabioh8010]

This is on hold Melvin..

[blazejkustra]

Details:

We want to standardize with just one approach, !! and Boolean() are almost identical and we want to ensure just one is used in the codebase to avoid cases like this 😅

offline = Boolean(network.shouldForceOffline) || !!network.isOffline;

This includes writing a proposal on Slack, adjusting the code in the repository and perhaps adding an eslint rule that ensures only one approach is used. I myself believe !! is more readable more concise and faster in runtime.

This issue requires a minimal understanding of how Expensify process works, before coding the contributor have to post a Problem/Solution on open-source channel

[ShridharGoel]

@blazejkustra Do we need to post on Slack? We generally post proposals on GitHub itself, I've posted a proposal above.

[blazejkustra]

The issue is still on hold, please wait until it's open for external contributors @ShridharGoel

[melvin-bot]

This issue has not been updated in over 14 days. eroding to Weekly issue.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01111a2979f5f2ac8c

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @CortneyOfstad (NewFeature), see https://stackoverflowteams.com/c/expensify/questions/14418#:~:text=BugZero%20process%20steps%20for%20feature%20requests for more details. Please add this Feature request to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @ntdiary (External)

[CortneyOfstad]

PR is being actively reviewed so no additional update at this stage!

[melvin-bot]

Reviewing label has been removed, please complete the "BugZero Checklist".

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.81-11 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [No QA] Use double negation instead of Boolean() #42492

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-18. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @ShridharGoel requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @ishpaul777 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR adding this new feature has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@ishpaul777] Please propose regression test steps to ensure the new feature will work correctly on production in further releases.
• [@CortneyOfstad] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

[melvin-bot]

The solution for this issue has been 🚀 deployed to production 🚀 in version 1.4.82-4 and is now subject to a 7-day regression period 📆. Here is the list of pull requests that resolve this issue:

• [No QA] Use double negation instead of Boolean() #42492

If no regressions arise, payment will be issued on 2024-06-20. 🎊

For reference, here are some details about the assignees on this issue:

• @ShridharGoel requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)
• @ishpaul777 requires payment automatic offer (Contributor)

[melvin-bot]

BugZero Checklist: The PR adding this new feature has been merged! The following checklist (instructions) will need to be completed before the issue can be closed:

• [@ishpaul777] Please propose regression test steps to ensure the new feature will work correctly on production in further releases.
• [@CortneyOfstad] Link the GH issue for creating/updating the regression test once above steps have been agreed upon.

[CortneyOfstad]

@ishpaul777 can you confirm if this needs a regression test please before EOD to help avoid a delay in payment? Thank you!

[CortneyOfstad]

Bump @ishpaul777 ^^^

[ishpaul777]

Sorry i missed the ping. We dont need a regression test, this issue was not about adding a new functionality but to standardize on a code pattern.

[CortneyOfstad]

@ShridharGoel I had to reinvite you to the job post because for some reason you were not listed in Upwork — let me know once you accept and I can get that paid ASAP!

[ishpaul777]

not overdue, @ShridharGoel gentle bump on ^, so we can close this

[melvin-bot]

@CortneyOfstad, @ShridharGoel, @aldo-expensify, @ishpaul777 Uh oh! This issue is overdue by 2 days. Don't forget to update your issues!

[CortneyOfstad]

@ShridharGoel let me know once you accept and I can get this paid ASAP. Thanks!

[ShridharGoel]

Accepted, thanks.

[CortneyOfstad]

Payment Summary

@ishpaul777 — paid $250 via Upwork
@ShridharGoel — paid $250 via Upwork