Skip to content

ci: Add type definition check #2462

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 3, 2025
Merged

Conversation

dplewis
Copy link
Member

@dplewis dplewis commented Feb 20, 2025

Pull Request

Issue

Building types in the CI doesn't mean those built types are added to the code base.

Closes: #2460

Approach

Add a type check to ensure files are properly generated

Tasks

  • Add tests
  • Add changes to documentation (guides, repository pages, code comments)

Copy link

Thanks for opening this pull request!

@dplewis dplewis requested review from mtrezza and a team February 20, 2025 16:45
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (fbd5610) to head (3f189cc).
Report is 34 commits behind head on alpha.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             alpha     #2462   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           64        64           
  Lines         6256      6256           
  Branches      1447      1476   +29     
=========================================
  Hits          6256      6256           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@dplewis dplewis mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2025
2 tasks
@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Feb 22, 2025

This let's us know that a generated type is missing because the test would fail.

Which CI job would fail? Or should the CI build the types, compare and fail is there's a diff? I think that's how the Definitions check works in the CI.

@dplewis
Copy link
Member Author

dplewis commented Feb 22, 2025

That’s even better, it will also catch if contributors manually change the files

@dplewis dplewis changed the title ci: Remove building types ci: Add type definition check Feb 25, 2025
@dplewis
Copy link
Member Author

dplewis commented Feb 25, 2025

@mtrezza I took your suggestion and added a type diff checker.

@dplewis dplewis requested review from a team and removed request for a team February 25, 2025 19:59
Copy link
Member

@mtrezza mtrezza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice!

@mtrezza mtrezza merged commit fef72e3 into parse-community:alpha Mar 3, 2025
12 checks passed
@dplewis dplewis deleted the build-types-ci branch March 3, 2025 01:00
@parseplatformorg
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This change has been released in version 6.1.0-alpha.1

@parseplatformorg parseplatformorg added the state:released-alpha Released as alpha version label Mar 5, 2025
@parseplatformorg
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This change has been released in version 6.1.0

@parseplatformorg parseplatformorg added the state:released Released as stable version label Mar 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
state:released Released as stable version state:released-alpha Released as alpha version
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants