popcodeorg / popcodeorg/popcode
Add a type checker to Popcode's JS validations
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- JavaScript
- Stelle
- 191
- Fork
- 143
- Merge medio
- 4g 11h
- PR unite (30g)
- 5
Descrizione
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
Guida per i contributori
Nessuna guida per i contributori indicizzata per questo repository
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Non sono indicati file o test. Inizia esaminando le validazioni esistenti di JSHint ed Esprima, quindi confronta TypeScript e Flow compatibili con i browser con i vincoli dichiarati e le esigenze di filtraggio dei messaggi. Il lavoro è completato quando viene selezionato un approccio che controlli JavaScript e librerie supportati, mostrando solo feedback correggibile, pedagogicamente valido, accessibile e non duplicato.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- javascript, typescript
- Ambito
- frontend, web-dev
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Da chiarire
- Idoneità per principianti
- 20/100