-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
feat: Introduce ecosystem tests for popular plugins #127
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
d55fe1a
9baeb50
a52ca5e
1329c1a
cdb2677
071532d
7d61947
d1ab08b
994a1a8
2dcf2be
5a79c72
e663bf3
91aa502
4612800
8fd5da4
0f518bf
c176a7e
7fef2ef
c767f0f
8ddf9ea
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@ | ||||||||||||||
- Repo: eslint/eslint | ||||||||||||||
- Start Date: 2024-11-25 | ||||||||||||||
- RFC PR: <https://github.com/eslint/rfcs/pull/127> | ||||||||||||||
- Authors: [Josh Goldberg](https://github.com/JoshuaKGoldberg) | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
# Introduce ecosystem tests for popular third-party plugins | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Summary | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Adding an CI job to the `eslint/eslint` repo that checks changes against a small selection of third-party plugins. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Motivation | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Changes in ESLint occasionally break downstream plugins in unexpected ways. | ||||||||||||||
Those changes might be unintentional breaking changes, or even non-breaking changes that happen to touch edge case behaviors relied on by plugins. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
[Bug: Error while loading rule '@typescript-eslint/no-unused-expressions](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/19134) is an example change in ESLint's that caused downstream breakages in third-party plugins. | ||||||||||||||
At least two popular plugins -[`eslint-plugin-unicorn`](https://github.com/sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn/issues/2496) and [`typescript-eslint`](https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/10338)- were broken by that change. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
The plugins broke because they were relying on non-public implementation details of ESLint rules per [Docs: Formalize recommendation against plugins calling to rules via use-at-your-own-risk](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/19169). | ||||||||||||||
When the root cause is a bug in the downstream plugins, an "early warning" system would help them fix their issues before the incompatible changes to ESLint are published. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Detailed Design | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### CI Job | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
The new CI job will, for each plugin: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
1. Create a new directory containing a `package.json`, `eslint.config.js`, and small set of files known to be parsed and not cause lint reports with the plugin | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
2. Run a lint command (i.e. `npx eslint .`) in that directory | ||||||||||||||
3. Assert that the lint command passed with 0 lint reports. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This will all be runnable locally with a `package.json` script like `npm run test:ecosystem --plugin unicorn`. | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
An addition to `.github/workflows/ci.yml` under `jobs` would approximately look like: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
```yml | ||||||||||||||
test_ecosystem: | ||||||||||||||
name: Test Ecosystem Plugins | ||||||||||||||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest | ||||||||||||||
strategy: | ||||||||||||||
matrix: | ||||||||||||||
plugin: | ||||||||||||||
- eslint-plugin-unicorn | ||||||||||||||
- eslint-plugin-vue | ||||||||||||||
- typescript-eslint | ||||||||||||||
steps: | ||||||||||||||
- uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||||||||||||||
- uses: actions/setup-node@v4 | ||||||||||||||
with: | ||||||||||||||
node-version: "lts/*" | ||||||||||||||
- name: Install Packages | ||||||||||||||
run: npm install | ||||||||||||||
- name: Test ${{ matrix.plugin }} | ||||||||||||||
run: npm run test:ecosystem --plugin ${{ matrix.plugin }} | ||||||||||||||
``` | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
A `test/ecosystem` directory will be created with a directory for each plugin. | ||||||||||||||
The `test:ecosystem` script will copy the contents of the provided `--plugin` directory into a clean `test/${plugin}-scratch` directory. | ||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I just realized we're not really defining what "breakage" is anywhere. Are we just running There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I wasn't planning on suggesting including source code from plugins in this proposal. To start I was thinking of just verifying that Relying on tests makes me a little nervous. It'd be a lot slower -especially if the plugins have build steps- and we'd need to make sure none of them have tests that rely on specifics of rule reports. My vote would be to just use the plugins as end-users until we have a breakage that would have been caught by source code level checks. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain how that would work? Are you running There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's what I intend by this: rfcs/designs/2024-repo-ecosystem-plugin-tests/README.md Lines 30 to 35 in 8fd5da4
Is that not clear? Is there a different phrasing you'd suggest? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Got it now. I'm a bit skeptical that this approach will give us the data that we want for a few reasons:
That why's I think running There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree with @nzakas that running the plugin's own rule tests seems like a better approach. If it's doable. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Asserting that plugins successfully produce reports will not be part of this job. | ||||||||||||||
Depending on specifics of plugin rule reports would make the job prone to failure on arbitrary plugin rule updates. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### Failure Handling | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
It is theoretically possible that the ecosystem CI job will occasionally be broken by updates to ecosystem plugins. | ||||||||||||||
However, this RFC believes that case will be exceedingly rare and short-lived: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- Per [Plugin Selection](#plugin-selection), only very stable plugins that test on multiple ESLint versions including the latest will be selected | ||||||||||||||
- Today, plugin breakages are typically resolved within a week - even without this RFC's proposed "early warning" detection | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
In the case of a breakage being discovered, this RFC proposes the following process: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
1. An ESLint team member should file a bug report on the plugin's repository -if it doesn't yet exist-, as well as an issue on `eslint/eslint` linking to that bug report | ||||||||||||||
2. If the issue isn't resolved within two weeks: | ||||||||||||||
1. The plugin will be removed from ESLint's ecosystem CI job | ||||||||||||||
2. An ESLint team member should file a followup issue to re-add it once the breakage is fixed | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### Major Releases | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Upcoming new major versions of ESLint are an expected failure case for ecosystem plugins. | ||||||||||||||
The ecosystem CI job will skip running any plugin that doesn't explicitly support the version of ESLint being tested. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Plugin version support will be determined by the maximum `eslint` peer dependency range in the plugin's published `package.json`, if it exists. | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
Otherwise the ESLint repository will assume only supporting up to the currently stable version of ESLint. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### Plugin Selection | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
The plugins that will be included to start will be: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- [`eslint-plugin-unicorn`](https://github.com/sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn): to capture a large selection of miscellaneous rules | ||||||||||||||
- [`eslint-plugin-vue`](https://github.com/vuejs/eslint-plugin-vue): to capture support for a framework with nested parsing of a non-JavaScript/TypeScript-standard syntax | ||||||||||||||
- [`typescript-eslint`](https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint): to capture testing TypeScript APIs and intricate uses of parsing in general | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Plugins will be selectively added if meet the following criteria: | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- >1 million npm downloads a week: arbitrary large size threshold to avoid small packages | ||||||||||||||
- Adding a notable new API usage not yet covered: to avoid duplicate equivalent plugins | ||||||||||||||
- Has had a breakage reported on ESLint: to be cautious in adding to the list | ||||||||||||||
- Is under active maintenance: to avoid packages that won't be updated quickly on failures | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
The number of plugins should remain small. | ||||||||||||||
Each added plugin brings adds the risk of third-party breakage, so plugins will only be added after filing a new issue and gaining team consensus. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### Rollout | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This RFC expects the added ecosystem CI job to _likely_ consistently pass. | ||||||||||||||
However, to be safe, this RFC proposes adding a CI job in three steps: | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
1. On a branch that and updated from `main` several times a week | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
2. On the `main` branch only | ||||||||||||||
3. On all branches, alongside existing CI jobs | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
At least one month should be held between steps to make sure the job is consistently passing. | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Open Questions | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Automation could be added for at least the filing of issues on plugin failures. | ||||||||||||||
That does not seem worth the time expenditure given how rarely plugins are expected to fail. | ||||||||||||||
Is that accurate? | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Are there other plugins we should include that satisfy the criteria? | ||||||||||||||
JoshuaKGoldberg marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Help Needed | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
I expect to implement this change. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Frequently Asked Questions | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
### Given ESLint respects semver, why add tests for plugins that are relying on internals? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
It's exceedingly difficult to be sure when changes to a large published package break contracts with downstream consumers. | ||||||||||||||
Even when all packages in an ecosystem are well-tested the way ESLint and its major plugins are, the sheer project size and duration of maintenance make unfortunate edge cases likely to happen. | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
> [Venerable xkcd "Workflow" comic](https://xkcd.com/1172) | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
## Related Discussions | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
- [Repo: add end-to-end/integration tests for popular 3rd party plugins](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues/19139) |
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.
Should we utilize eslint-remote-tester for testing against other repositories? If not, can we mention it under "alternatives considered" or at least mention it as prior art?
I know a number of popular plugins use it like:
@AriPerkkio
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.
Thanks for ping @bmish. Here's a quick summary of what
eslint-remote-tester
does:eslint-remote-tester.config.js/ts
you'll configure ESLint config (identical to ESLint'soverrideConfig
) and repositories that should be cloned on the file system.node:worker_threads
that each handle a single repository parallel.There are some examples of bugs it can find automatically listed here: AriPerkkio/eslint-remote-tester#3. I used to run it against most popular community plugins for a while couple of years ago.
Also worth to mention:
eslint-plugin-unicorn
,eslint-plugin-jest
,eslint-plugin-testing-library
andeslint-plugin-vitest
.For the other ecosystem CI setups I would recommend to check how Vite and Vitest does this. There has also been some thoughts about making a generic ecosystem-ci that all Javascript ecosystem packages could utilize. It would not be strictly tied to Vite-ecosystem like the current ones are.
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.
TIL, thanks for the reference! I think it would actually make a lot of sense to use
eslint-remote-tester
. It does roughly what we're suggesting, but with much better parallelization and reporting. Nice! 🔥I put up a PoC branch here: https://github.com/JoshuaKGoldberg/eslint/tree/eslint-remote-tester-poc/tests/remote.
I'm in favor, but am hesitant to change the RFC until the TSC weighs in.
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.
This is an interesting idea, but I think we should first decide if we want to run plugin tests instead (#127 (comment)).