-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
ci: Cleanup and enforce types check #1102
Conversation
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ export class PlotlyExpressChartModel extends ChartModel { | |||
) { | |||
super(dh); | |||
|
|||
this.widget = widget; | |||
this.widget = 4; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mattrunyon Was this left here intentionally?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I did it to test that the CI test actually fails. Turns out I broke CI because it runs npm run build -- --scope <plugin>
and I changed the build
script at the root. I'll fix that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left a couple of comments
I also added |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Was going through actions to figure out where to add docs PR previews and saw this type check action was not part of the enforced tests, missing
setup-node
(so not sure what version it was using), and adding functionality thatsetup-node
already provides (matchers for tsc and eslint errors in logs).I added JS build to the test-js-packages step. This isn't completely necessary since the e2e job should fail if the packages fail to build, but figured an explicit check was good to add.