Week 2 Blog: Progress Report on 0.4 🚀⛵

Ahoy, fellow developers! It's time for my Week 2 update on my exciting 0.4 journey. While I’ve made significant strides, there’s a new storm on the horizon: CI issues. Let’s explore what I’ve accomplished so far, the challenges I’m tackling, and my game plan for smooth sailing ahead. 🌊⚓

What Have I Accomplished So Far? 🎯

In the first week, I focused on writing comprehensive tests and achieving high coverage for the @rcb-plugins/input-validator. Here’s the summary of my efforts:

✅ Testing Key Components:

validateFile.test.ts: Ensured file validation for different types of uploads (valid, invalid, empty, and null files).
getValidator.test.ts: Verified that the correct validator functions (validateTextInput, validateFileInput) are retrieved from the flow.
mergePluginConfig.test.ts: Confirmed that user configurations merge correctly with default configurations.
getPromptStyles.test.ts: Checked that dynamic styles apply correctly for error, success, and other prompt types.
useRcbPlugin.test.ts: Focused on the plugin’s core logic, including handling input validation, file uploads, and style restoration.

✅ Achieved High Test Coverage:

Most files have 95–100% coverage, including edge cases. This was a major win for ensuring plugin reliability. 🎉

What Have I Figured Out? 🧠💡

Through focused efforts, I learned:

How to Mock and Simulate Complex Scenarios:
- Used Jest and @testing-library/react to simulate DOM events, file uploads, and style updates.
- Managed to isolate and test plugin logic with precision.
Tackling Dynamic Style Updates:
- Successfully verified that styles update dynamically based on validation results.
Clean Code Practices:
- Modularized tests into distinct files for clarity and maintainability.

New Challenges: CI Issues 🚨⚠️

This week, I opened a Pull Request, which included all the tests and updates. While I was excited about the progress, CI (Continuous Integration) issues emerged like a storm cloud:

Here’s the error report:

Error: Unexpected any. Specify a different type @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
Error: 'error is defined but never used' @typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars
Warning: Unused eslint-disable directive (no problems were reported)

Key Problems:

Usage of any: Multiple instances of any in test files caused linting errors.
Unused Variables: Some variables like error were defined but not used, triggering TypeScript warnings.
Coverage Report Issues: The linter flagged unused ESLint directives in the coverage report.

Despite my efforts, I haven’t been able to fully resolve these CI issues yet. The errors are preventing the PR from passing CI checks, which means I can’t merge it into the main branch. 😞

How Will I Adjust? 🛠️⛵

To tackle the current roadblocks and stay on course, here’s my plan:

Fix TypeScript Linting Errors:
- Replace any types with explicit types in all test cases.
- Refactor unused variables or remove them entirely to clean up the code.
Debug and Recheck Tests:
- Ensure all test cases still run smoothly after fixing the linting issues.
- Use the --fix option with ESLint to resolve minor warnings automatically.
Collaborate for Feedback:
- Share the PR with maintainers for guidance on unresolved errors.
- Confirm if my approach aligns with the project’s linting and TypeScript standards.
Stay Flexible:
- If linting issues persist, consider breaking down the PR into smaller, manageable parts for better debugging.

Final Thoughts 💭✨

While the CI issues have slowed down my progress, they’ve also taught me the importance of attention to detail. Testing isn’t just about code coverage—it’s about clean, maintainable, and standards-compliant code.

Despite the hiccups, I’m optimistic about resolving these issues and pushing the PR forward. My next step will be to squash the linting bugs and ensure my work gets merged into the main branch.

Stay tuned for the final blog post next week, where I’ll reflect on the entire journey and (hopefully) celebrate a successfully merged PR! 🎉🚀

Until next time, happy coding! 💻🌟