Migrate Frontend codebase to Typescript and Vite

[royallsilwallz]

What type of PR is this?

• [x] 🍕 Feature
• [x] 🐛 Bug Fix
• [x] 📝 Documentation
• [x] 🧑‍💻 Refactor
• [x] ✅ Test
• [x] 🤖 Build or CI

Related Issue

• Fixes #6531
• Fixes #6533

Describe this PR

This PR includes the following changes -

• Javascript --> Typescript
• Craco --> Vite
• Jest --> Vitest

Led by - @JoltCode :rocket: :sparkles:

[JoltCode]

Awesome! 👍

[spwoodcock]

This is fantabulous - seriously great work! 🎆

[spwoodcock]

The complaints from SonarCloud are likely not new, but simply showing because we touch a lot of files here right?

My thinking is its nothing to worry about, but would love to hear if @royallsilwallz has any insight?

At the end of the day, I think code quality concerns are bottom of the list - functioning code with adequate tests is more important to me 😄

[JoltCode]

The complaints from SonarCloud are likely not new, but simply showing because we touch a lot of files here right?

My thinking is its nothing to worry about, but would love to hear if @royallsilwallz has any insight?

At the end of the day, I think code quality concerns are bottom of the list - functioning code with adequate tests is more important to me 😄

Yep, I think most of them were already there, but perhaps dismissed? Since the files have been changed from .js -> .ts, and perhaps because we've touched the problem areas, it's reactivated the warnings?

Yep, for now, I think we should ignore them, and address them shortly in a future PR!

[spwoodcock]

The complaints from SonarCloud are likely not new, but simply showing because we touch a lot of files here right?

My thinking is its nothing to worry about, but would love to hear if @royallsilwallz has any insight?

At the end of the day, I think code quality concerns are bottom of the list - functioning code with adequate tests is more important to me 😄

Yep, I think most of them were already there, but perhaps dismissed? Since the files have been changed from .js -> .ts, and perhaps because we've touched the problem areas, it's reactivated the warnings?

Yep, for now, I think we should ignore them, and address them shortly in a future PR!

Agree!

I think its because the files have been edited, the checking is triggered, as you say.

So its nothing new introduced, just old issues reflagged (my hunch at least)

[royallsilwallz]

Yes @spwoodcock and @JoltCode , you guys are correct! We have been ignoring SonarCloud issues in TM, for the frontend at least. :face_holding_back_tears:

With this PR, we will add strict eslint & prettier lint configs so that we have consistent development setup for all. Also, we will be fixing lint errors leaving the errors count close to zero. That might help a lot.

Let's see how it goes! :dart: :smiley:

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
21 Security Hotspots
C Reliability Rating on New Code (required ≥ A)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE