popcodeorg / popcodeorg/popcode
Add a type checker to Popcode's JS validations
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- JavaScript
- Estrellas
- 191
- Forks
- 143
- Merge medio
- 4 d 11 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 5
Descripción
Wouldn't it be cool if we could give students feedback based on type checking?
The likely constraints to any type checker we use:
- Runnable in browser
- Can parse regular JS
- Has typings for a healthy subset of Popcode's supported libs (jQuery, lodash, Bootstrap, Mustache)
The current most popular type-checked ~supersets of javascript are TypeScript and Flow.
Here's my opinion on how each breaks down against those 3 constraints (disclosure: I am much more familiar with Flow):
- This blog post details how you can get TypeScript type checking in the browser. Adapting to Webpack is left as an exercise for the reader.
- I don't know enough to say. I know that TypeScript will be fine with trivial examples of untyped JS, but I don't know how well it does with more complicated code samples.
- TypeScript has typings for all four supported libs.
Flow:
- Flow has a (mostly undocumented) compiled-to-js version, which is used in the "Try Flow" sandbox. Instructions for building this file are at the bottom of these instructions.
- Flow is designed for the gradual introduction of types, and being run on code with no typings is a first class use case. That said, there are still a number of ways that the checker can get "confused", which is to say that Flow has opinions which will clash with a lot of beginner-level code patterns, in particular with regards to object mutability. Example.
- Flow has available typings for jQuery and lodash.
With both options, a major component of this feature will be filtering messages to ensure that anything students see will be
- Fixable (e.g. not requiring type annotations or special syntax)
- Pedagogically sound (we're not trying to teach them more advanced concepts like variance here)
- Accessible (e.g. the Flow message in the example could be simplified to "Your object doesn't have the field 'newField'").
- Unique (we already have JSHint and Esprima to complain about syntax issues and undeclared variables)
Other considerations:
- bundle size
- speed of checks
Guía de contribución
No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
No se nombran archivos ni pruebas. Empieza revisando las validaciones existentes de JSHint y Esprima; después, compara TypeScript y Flow compatibles con el navegador con las restricciones indicadas y las necesidades de filtrado de mensajes. Se considera terminado cuando se haya seleccionado un enfoque que compruebe el JavaScript y las bibliotecas compatibles, y muestre únicamente comentarios corregibles, pedagógicamente sólidos, accesibles y no duplicados.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- javascript, typescript
- Área
- frontend, web-dev
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Claridad
- Necesita aclaración
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 20/100