-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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 all commits
d55fe1a
9baeb50
a52ca5e
1329c1a
cdb2677
071532d
7d61947
d1ab08b
994a1a8
2dcf2be
5a79c72
e663bf3
91aa502
4612800
8fd5da4
0f518bf
c176a7e
7fef2ef
c767f0f
8ddf9ea
480a8bb
a26b9ee
fb5f7bd
3df1980
1a3bf12
e16a614
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 +1,177 @@ | ||
- 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 plugins | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
Adding an CI job to the `eslint/eslint` repository that checks changes against `@eslint/*` plugins as well as 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) reports an example change in ESLint 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). | ||
ESLint core's [`eslint-config-eslint`](https://github.com/eslint/eslint/tree/main/packages/eslint-config-eslint) does not use all rules of downstream plugins and is not always up-to-date with their latest versions, so its internal usage of plugins is not sufficient to flag all high visibility compatibility issues. | ||
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 | ||
|
||
This RFC proposes creating a small list of popular third-party plugins that will be tested as part of ESLint's CI. | ||
Each plugin will have a `test:eslint-compat` script in their `package.json` that runs lint rule tests. | ||
|
||
See [Plugin Selection](#plugin-selection) below for specifics on which plugins will be included. | ||
|
||
> ⚠️ Plugins are currently being asked for feedback on the `test:eslint-compat` script. | ||
|
||
### CI Job | ||
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. 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: 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. Thanks for ping @bmish. Here's a quick summary of what
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: 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 commentThe 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 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 commentThe 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)). |
||
|
||
The new CI job will, for each plugin: | ||
|
||
1. Clone the plugin into a directory named `test/ecosystem/${plugin}` | ||
2. Run the plugin's package installation and build commands with [ni](https://github.com/antfu-collective/ni) | ||
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. How will |
||
3. Link the plugin to the current eslint installation | ||
- This will have to be done manually, as ni does not support linking ([ni#85](https://github.com/antfu-collective/ni/issues/85 "ni issue 85: Maybe xxx link can join ni project")) | ||
4. Run the plugin's `test:eslint-compat` script with [ni](https://github.com/antfu-collective/ni) | ||
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. Does |
||
|
||
This will all be runnable locally with a `package.json` script like `npm run test:ecosystem --plugin eslint-plugin-unicorn`. | ||
|
||
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 }} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
For now, it is assumed each plugin that needs to be built before testing does so with a script named `build`. | ||
The CI job could be given overrides in the `matrix.plugin` to override the name of the builder script(s) as needed. | ||
|
||
### Failure Handling | ||
|
||
It is theoretically possible that the ecosystem CI job will occasionally be broken by updates to 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
|
||
- Example: [typescript-eslint#10191](https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/10191) was reported on October 21st, 2024 and a fix published on October 28th, 2024 | ||
- Example: [typescript-eslint#10338](https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/10338) was reported on November 15th, 2024 and a fix published on November 18th, 2024 | ||
- Example: [eslint-plugin-unicorn#2496](https://github.com/sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn/issues/2496) was reported on November 15th, 2024 and a fix published on November 19th, 2024 | ||
|
||
If a breakage occurs on the `main` branch of ESLint, it will be assumed a plugin has introduced a compatibility bug and should be fixed. | ||
This RFC proposes the following process: | ||
|
||
1. An ESLint team member should file issues tracking fixing the breakage: | ||
- A bug report on the plugin's repository if it doesn't yet exist | ||
- An issue on `eslint/eslint` linking to that bug report | ||
2. If the issue isn't resolved by the next day, an ESLint team member should: | ||
1. Send a PR to the ESLint repository to remove the plugin from ESLint's ecosystem CI job | ||
2. File a followup issue to re-add it once the breakage is fixed | ||
|
||
In the case of a breakage being discovered on a PR branch, this RFC proposes the following process: | ||
|
||
1. If the failure is an indication of an issue in the PR, the PR should be updated as usual | ||
2. Otherwise, if the failure is an indication the plugin needs to be updated, the PR's author should drive filing issues to update the plugin: | ||
1. The PR author should file a bug report on the plugin's repository - if it doesn't yet exist | ||
2. If the issue isn't resolved within two weeks: | ||
1. The PR's author should remove the plugin from ESLint's ecosystem CI job in the PR | ||
2. The PR's author should file a followup issue on ESLint, initially labeled as `blocked`, to re-add it once the breakage is fixed | ||
3. Once the breakage is fixed, a team member should replace the issue's `blocked` label with `accepted` | ||
|
||
### 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: | ||
|
||
- All `@eslint/*` plugins, including [`@eslint/css`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@eslint/css), [`@eslint/json`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@eslint/json), and [`@eslint/markdown`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@eslint/markdown) | ||
- [`eslint-plugin-eslint-comments`](https://github.com/eslint-community/eslint-plugin-eslint-comments): to capture an `eslint-community` project and AST edge cases around comments | ||
- [`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 | ||
|
||
Third-party plugins will be selectively added if they meet all of the following criteria: | ||
|
||
- >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 and has taken a week or less to fix any ESLint breakages within the last year: to avoid packages that won't be updated quickly on failures | ||
- Add a `test:eslint-compat` script that exclusively runs lint rule tests | ||
|
||
The number of third-party plugins should remain small. | ||
Each added plugin adds a risk of 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. | ||
A CI job will be added to the `eslint/eslint` repository, but will not immediately be a part of `main` branch or PR branch builds. | ||
To be safe, this RFC proposes rolling out CI job in three steps: | ||
|
||
1. On a CI cron job once a day, targeting the `main` branch but not blocking its builds | ||
2. On the `main` branch only, with failures showing as failures in its builds | ||
3. On all PRs targeting the `main` branch, alongside existing CI jobs | ||
|
||
Each step will replace the previous step. | ||
Once all three are done, running ecosystem tests will be a standard part of `main` branch and pull request CI along with existing tasks like linting and testing. | ||
|
||
Starting with a job separately from `main` ensures that unexpectedly high frequencies of breakages are caught early, without blocking `main` branch builds. | ||
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'm a bit confused by this process. Is the intent that we end up with all three at the end? Or just number 3? And I'm unclear on the value of number 2. Presumably, this is meant to run only after a PR is merged, but how will we be notified if the job fails? 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.
My intent was that each step would replace the previous. As in, at the end, we end up with just 3, which is a superset of 2.
I was thinking the ❌ failing commit on the I clarified the intent in c767f0f. Does that make sense? 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.
The problem with this is that it's passive -- it requires someone looking at the GitHub repo Code tab. (And then it requires that someone care enough to click on it to see what's going on.) I feel like this will be easy to miss. Is there some way to have a notification of some sort? 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. GitHub user that merged the PR gets a notification if CI checks failed on the main branch, so perhaps that user could take further steps and/or notify the rest of the team in the team channel. 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 don't get GitHub emails so I'd never know. 😄 I think we need an automated solution. 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. How about sending a Discord message to the My only concern there would be spamming the channel if multiple successive builds fail. Folks might be merging PRs without keeping them up-to-date with |
||
At least one month should be held between those steps to make sure the job is consistently passing. | ||
|
||
## Out of Scope | ||
|
||
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. | ||
This RFC's discussion settled on it not being worth it. | ||
|
||
Plugins using internal/private ESLint APIs are one of the canonical examples of what this process is meant to flag. | ||
However, this process intentionally does not include processes for making code changes in those plugins. | ||
For downstream repositories, this process only proposes how the ESLint team or PR contributors may file issues. | ||
This RFC's intent is that those repositories will drive changing their uses of ESLint APIs. | ||
|
||
## Open Questions | ||
|
||
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.
That's good. If there are any questions I think we can also discuss them in this RFC.