PromucFlow_constructor

Author SHA1 Message Date

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Ivan Akulov	424d2f6965	chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013 )Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com> ## Description This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export) syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge it easily. As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily: - add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and - re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes: https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is merged.) ### Why is this needed? This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from `7cbb12af88`, we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function. However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you this: <img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png"> That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it, we need to upgrade to Prettier 2. ### Why enforce `import type`? Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.) I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes refactorings easier. Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!) ```ts // app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts import { Position } from "codemirror"; import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint"; import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash"; ``` It’s pretty hard, right? What about now? ```ts // app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts import type { Position } from "codemirror"; import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint"; import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash"; ``` Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled. This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it _also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where `codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from "codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports. This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only imports anymore. ## Type of change - Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception) ## How Has This Been Tested? This was tested to not break the build. ### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR ### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test --------- Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>	2023-03-16 17:11:47 +05:30
Favour Ohanekwu	8790516f51	fix: unclear message when async action is used in sync fields (#20959 ) ## Description This PR replaces lint error message "`asyncAction` is not defined" to "Async framework action `asyncAction` cannot be executed in a function that is bound to a sync field.`" Fixes #21028 ## Type of change - Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue) ## How Has This Been Tested? -WIP ### Test Plan > Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR ### Issues raised during DP testing > Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking (copy link from comments dropped on this PR) ## Checklist: ### Dev activity - [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] My changes generate no new warnings - [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag ### QA activity: - [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers - [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA - [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or manual QA - [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after Round 1/2 of QA - [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test	2023-03-08 15:41:30 +01:00

Ivan Akulov

424d2f6965

chore: upgrade to prettier v2 + enforce import types (#21013 )Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com> Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>

## Description

This PR upgrades Prettier to v2 + enforces TypeScript’s [`import
type`](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-3-8.html#type-only-imports-and-export)
syntax where applicable. It’s submitted as a separate PR so we can merge
it easily.

As a part of this PR, we reformat the codebase heavily:
- add `import type` everywhere where it’s required, and
- re-format the code to account for Prettier 2’s breaking changes:
https://prettier.io/blog/2020/03/21/2.0.0.html#breaking-changes

This PR is submitted against `release` to make sure all new code by team
members will adhere to new formatting standards, and we’ll have fewer
conflicts when merging `bundle-optimizations` into `release`. (I’ll
merge `release` back into `bundle-optimizations` once this PR is
merged.)

### Why is this needed?

This PR is needed because, for the Lodash optimization from
7cbb12af88,
we need to use `import type`. Otherwise, `babel-plugin-lodash` complains
that `LoDashStatic` is not a lodash function.

However, just using `import type` in the current codebase will give you
this:

<img width="962" alt="Screenshot 2023-03-08 at 17 45 59"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2953267/223775744-407afa0c-e8b9-44a1-90f9-b879348da57f.png">

That’s because Prettier 1 can’t parse `import type` at all. To parse it,
we need to upgrade to Prettier 2.

### Why enforce `import type`?

Apart from just enabling `import type` support, this PR enforces
specifying `import type` everywhere it’s needed. (Developers will get
immediate TypeScript and ESLint errors when they forget to do so.)

I’m doing this because I believe `import type` improves DX and makes
refactorings easier.

Let’s say you had a few imports like below. Can you tell which of these
imports will increase the bundle size? (Tip: it’s not all of them!)

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import { Position } from "codemirror";
import { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

It’s pretty hard, right?

What about now?

```ts
// app/client/src/workers/Linting/utils.ts
import type { Position } from "codemirror";
import type { LintError as JSHintError, LintOptions } from "jshint";
import { get, isEmpty, isNumber, keys, last, set } from "lodash";
```

Now, it’s clear that only `lodash` will be bundled.

This helps developers to see which imports are problematic, but it
_also_ helps with refactorings. Now, if you want to see where
`codemirror` is bundled, you can just grep for `import \{.*\} from
"codemirror"` – and you won’t get any type-only imports.

This also helps (some) bundlers. Upon transpiling, TypeScript erases
type-only imports completely. In some environment (not ours), this makes
the bundle smaller, as the bundler doesn’t need to bundle type-only
imports anymore.

## Type of change

- Chore (housekeeping or task changes that don't impact user perception)


## How Has This Been Tested?

This was tested to not break the build.

### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test

---------

Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <hello@satishgandham.com>
Co-authored-by: Satish Gandham <satish.iitg@gmail.com>

2023-03-16 17:11:47 +05:30

Favour Ohanekwu

8790516f51

fix: unclear message when async action is used in sync fields (#20959 )

## Description
This PR replaces lint error message "`asyncAction` is not defined" to
"Async framework action `asyncAction` cannot be executed in a function
that is bound to a sync field.`"

Fixes #21028 



## Type of change

- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)


## How Has This Been Tested?
-WIP

### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR

### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)


## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag


### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test

2023-03-08 15:41:30 +01:00

2 Commits