Skip to content
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] Adjust guidelines, both TS and JS markdown files #41212

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
May 10, 2024

Conversation

JKobrynski
Copy link
Contributor

@JKobrynski JKobrynski commented Apr 29, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

$ #39118
PROPOSAL: N/A

Tests

  • 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@blazejkustra blazejkustra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great work! 🙌

contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contributingGuides/STYLE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JKobrynski
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for reviewing @blazejkustra! Changes applied 😄

@blazejkustra
Copy link
Contributor

Let's tag some Internal people too, they might want to read this through 😄

@JKobrynski JKobrynski marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2024 06:52
@JKobrynski JKobrynski requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2024 06:52
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from mollfpr and removed request for a team May 8, 2024 06:52
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented May 8, 2024

@mollfpr 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]


### `d.ts` Extension

Do not use `d.ts` file extension even when a file contains only type declarations. Only exceptions are `src/types/global.d.ts` and `src/types/modules/*.d.ts` files in which third party packages and JavaScript's built-in modules (e.g. `window` object) can be modified using module augmentation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Do not use `d.ts` file extension even when a file contains only type declarations. Only exceptions are `src/types/global.d.ts` and `src/types/modules/*.d.ts` files in which third party packages and JavaScript's built-in modules (e.g. `window` object) can be modified using module augmentation.
Do not use `d.ts` file extension even when a file contains only type declarations. Only exceptions are `src/types/global.d.ts` and `src/types/modules/*.d.ts` files in which third party packages and JavaScript's built-in modules (e.g. `window` object) can be modified using [module augmentation](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/declaration-merging.html#module-augmentation).


### Prop Types

Don't use `ComponentProps` to grab a component's prop types. Go to the source file for the component and export prop types from there. Import and use the exported prop types.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm actually not sure why we decided this, so maybe we should add a why clause here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not 100% sure either, as it was copied from TS_STYLE.md. I think it might be mostly for consistency, I have also seen some threads with people complaining about ComponentProps not always working, e.g. for class components with default props. Any ideas what we should put in the why section?

CC: @fabioh8010 @blazejkustra

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't remember the exact reason why we added this rule, I think it is because of couple reasons:

  • Importing props from the component file is very natural and more popular overall.
  • I find importing props more readable == personal preference
  • Turns out there are some gotchas when using this prop, so it is less reliable

Copy link
Contributor

@fabioh8010 fabioh8010 May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, since we have our own props defined in the codebase is always easy to just export and use it when required. ComponentProps (and its friends ComponentPropsWithoutRef, ComponentPropsWithRef) should be used only for specific situations or generic components.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks guys, changes applied!


In modules with platform-specific implementations, create `types.ts` to define shared types. Import and use shared types in each platform specific files. Do not use [`satisfies` operator](#satisfies-operator) for platform-specific implementations, always define shared types that complies with all variants.

> Why? To encourage consistent API across platform-specific implementations. If you're migrating module that doesn't have a default implement (i.e. `index.ts`, e.g. `getPlatform`), refer to [Migration Guidelines](#migration-guidelines) for further information.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
> Why? To encourage consistent API across platform-specific implementations. If you're migrating module that doesn't have a default implement (i.e. `index.ts`, e.g. `getPlatform`), refer to [Migration Guidelines](#migration-guidelines) for further information.
> Why? To encourage consistent API across platform-specific implementations. If you're migrating module that doesn't have a default implementation (i.e. `index.ts`, e.g. `getPlatform`), refer to [Migration Guidelines](#migration-guidelines) for further information.

mw100: {
maxWidth: '100%',
},
} satisfies Record<string, ViewStyle>;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

question: Would you need to do this to get the most narrow type?

Suggested change
} satisfies Record<string, ViewStyle>;
} as const satisfies Record<string, ViewStyle>;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so, but @fabioh8010 @blazejkustra can you confirm?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

question: Would you need to do this to get the most narrow type?

Yes that is correct, we could put another example as there are cases as const satisfies is not desirable.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it makes a difference in some cases, example:

satisfies Record<string, ViewStyle>:

    br0: {
        borderRadius: number;
    };
    br1: {
        borderRadius: number;
    };
}

as const satisfies Record<string, ViewStyle>:

{
    readonly br0: {
        readonly borderRadius: 0;
    };
    readonly br1: {
        readonly borderRadius: 4;
    };
}

So if we see any value in such narrow type I'm good to adjust the guidelines 👍


> Why? Hooks are easier to use (can be used inside the function component), and don't need nesting or `compose` when exporting the component. It also allows us to remove `compose` completely in some components since it has been bringing up some issues with TypeScript. Read the [`compose` usage](#compose-usage) section for further information about the TypeScript issues with `compose`.

> Note: Because Onyx doesn't provide a hook yet, in a component that accesses Onyx data with `withOnyx` HOC, please make sure that you don't use other HOCs (if applicable) to avoid HOC nesting.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is out of date - let's update this to formalize useOnyx as a best practice over withOnyx

}

// There is no hook alternative for withOnyx yet.
export default withOnyx<ComponentProps, ComponentOnyxProps>({
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's update this for useOnyx too


Avoid the usage of `compose` function to compose HOCs in TypeScript files. Use nesting instead.

> Why? `compose` function doesn't work well with TypeScript when dealing with several HOCs being used in a component, many times resulting in wrong types and errors. Instead, nesting can be used to allow a seamless use of multiple HOCs and result in a correct return type of the compoment. Also, you can use [hooks instead of HOCs](#hooks-instead-of-hocs) whenever possible to minimize or even remove the need of HOCs in the component.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
> Why? `compose` function doesn't work well with TypeScript when dealing with several HOCs being used in a component, many times resulting in wrong types and errors. Instead, nesting can be used to allow a seamless use of multiple HOCs and result in a correct return type of the compoment. Also, you can use [hooks instead of HOCs](#hooks-instead-of-hocs) whenever possible to minimize or even remove the need of HOCs in the component.
> Why? `compose` function doesn't work well with TypeScript when dealing with several HOCs being used in a component, many times resulting in wrong types and errors. Instead, nesting can be used to allow a seamless use of multiple HOCs and result in a correct return type of the compoment. Also, you can use [hooks instead of HOCs](#hooks-instead-of-hocs) whenever possible to minimize or even remove the need of HOCs in the component.

};

// GOOD
type ReadOnlyFoo = Readonly<Foo>;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we please also add an example for ValueOf?

// BAD
type FooValue = Foo[keyof Foo];

// GOOD
type FooValue = ValueOf<Foo>;

@JKobrynski
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roryabraham @blazejkustra @fabioh8010 PR updated, feel free to take another look!

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

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

@roryabraham roryabraham merged commit 0e8a10d into Expensify:main May 10, 2024
7 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 1.4.73-0 🚀

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

@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/Beamanator in version: 1.4.73-7 🚀

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants