Coding style is mostly enforced by a pre-commit hook that runs `eslint`. This hook is installed whenever running `yarn install` on any of the application directory. If for some reason the pre-commit hook didn't get installed, you can manually install it by running `yarn install` at the root of the repository.
Whenever possible, coding style should be enforced using an eslint rule. To do so, add the relevant rule or plugin to `eslintrc.js`. To manually run the linter, run `yarn linter ./` from the root of the project.
When adding a rule, you will often find that many files will no longer pass the linter. In that case, you have two options:
- Fix the files one by one. If there aren't too many files, and the changes are simple (they are unlikely to introduce regressions), this is the preferred solution.
- Or use `yarn linter-interactive ./` to disable existing errors. The interactive tool will process all the files and you can then choose to disable any existing error that it finds (by adding a `eslint-disable-next-line` comment above it). This allows keeping the existing, working codebase as it is, and enforcing that new code follows the rule. When using this method, add the comment "Old code before rule was applied" so that we can easily find back all the lines that have been automatically disabled.
Even if you are **modifying** a file that was originally in JavaScript you should ideally convert it first to TypeScript before modifying it.
If this is a large file however please ask first if it needs to be converted. Some very old and large JS files are tricky to convert properly due to poorly defined types, so in some cases it's better to leave that for another day (or another PR).
In TypeScript files prefer `import` to `require` so that we can benefit from type-checking. If it does not work, you may have to add the type using `yarn add @types/NAME_OF_PACKAGE`. If you are trying to import an old package, it may not have TypeScript types and in this case using `require()` is acceptable.
TypeScript can automatically detect the type so setting it explicitly in many cases is not needed, and makes the code unnecessarily verbose. We already have enabled the eslint rule `no-inferrable-types`, however it only applies to simple types such as string, number, etc. but not to function calls.
*`PascalCase.ts`: [Only if the file contains a single class, which is the default export.](https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/pull/6607#discussion_r906847156)
*`types.ts` or `fooTypes.ts`: [Shared type definitions](https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/pull/6607#discussion_r906847156)
* Example : [`types.ts`](https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/blob/dev/packages/server/src/utils/types.ts)
If you create a file that exports a single function called `processData()`, the file should be named `processData.ts`. When importing, it should be imported as `processData`, too. Basically, be consistent with naming, even though JS allows things to be named differently.
Don't allow this to lead to duplicate code, however. If constants are used multiple times, it's okay to declare them at the top of a file or in a separate, imported file.
Doing this avoids having to deal with the `this` keyword. Not having it makes it easier to refactor class components into React Hooks, because any use of `this` (used in classes) will be correctly detected as invalid by TypeScript.
As much as possible, avoid default parameters in **function definitions** and optional fields in **interface definitions**. When all parameters are required, it is much easier to refactor the code because the compiler will automatically catch any missing parameters.
[XSS](https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Cross_Site_Scripting_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html) is one of the most common vulnerabilities in today's code. These vulnerabilities are often difficult to spot because they are not errors, they often won't fail any test units and the program will work just fine with 99% of input. Yet that remaining 1% can be exploited and used to steal user information, crash the app, etc.
If you search for ["XSS" in the Joplin git log](https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/search?q=xss&type=commits) you'll find several security vulnerabilities that have been fixed over the year, and that happened in various places that are hard to predict. So we need to be careful with this and make sure we correctly escape user content.
We should do so even if we think we control the input or that it will always have a certain format. That may change in the future, or that could be exploited via another bug.
Finally, escaping data is often required to prevent markup code from breaking. For example quotes or angled brackets have to be escaped in HTML or else the markup is likely to break.
Ideally the application should only deal with raw, unencoded data, so it means data should be decoded and encoded at the application boundaries. Doing so means we avoid accidentally double-escaping data, or having to encode/decode within the app, which is error prone.
In practice it means as soon as we get user input, we should decode it to the application-specific format (for example by calling `JSON.parse` on the input). And likewise we should only escape the data when it needs to be printed or exported.
**BAD**
```ts
let parameters = `id=${encodeURIComponent(id)}&time=${encodeURIComponent(Date.now())}`;
// Clumsy string concatenation because we're dealing with already escaped data.
To name variables that are already escaped we used the technique described in "[Make wrong code look wrong](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/05/11/making-wrong-code-look-wrong/)". We add a suffix to indicate the content of the variable and to make it clear it has already been escaped. It means that the code will look wrong if a variable is inserted in a string and it does not have a suffix. For example:
**BAD:**
```ts
const userContent = queryParameters.page;
// ...
// later:
// ...
const html = `<div>${userContent}</div>`
// The above code looks wrong because it appears we're
// inserting user input as is in the document, and
// indeed we are. Wrong code looks wrong.
```
**GOOD:**
```ts
// Here we escape the data immediately - and we add an
// "html" prefix to specify that we have escaped the data
If `eslint` gives an error about `useFoo` being called outside of a component, be sure [the custom hook is titled appropriately](https://stackoverflow.com/a/55862839).
All columns should be defined as `NOT NULL`, possibly with a default value (but see below). This helps keeping queries more simple as we don't have to do check for both `NULL` and `0` or empty string.
Don't automatically give a default value to a column - in many cases it's better to require the user to explicitly set the value, otherwise it will be set to a default they might not know about or want. Exceptions can be less important columns, things like timestamp, or columns that are going to be set by the system.
If a column can be set to a fixed number of values, please set the type to integer. In code, you would then have a TypeScript enum that defines what each values is for. For example:
```typescript
export enum Action {
Create = 1,
Update = 2,
Delete = 3,
}
```
We don't use built-in database enums because they make migrations difficult. They provide added readability when accessing the database directly, but it is not worth the extra trouble.
A tested object might rely on dependencies involving other (complex) objects. To focus solely on the behavior of the object being tested, you substitute these dependencies with mocks, which mimic the behavior of the actual objects.
Mocking is useful if the real objects are impractical to incorporate into the unit test.
However we should not overuse this pattern because it means real code is not being tested. Instead, when possible try to test the real input and output of the algorithm. Instead of mocking a file write operation for example, create a temp directory and test that the file was actually written to that directory.
This is not a hard rule as mocking is sometimes useful, but it should only be used when there's no other option.
const data = await service.readConfig('/path/to/file.json');
expect(data.version).toBe(1);
```
### Avoid spying on method
In unit testing, spying means creating a mock function (a spy) for a specific method of an object.
Like mock objects, spies should be avoided whenever possible because they usually test implementation details that may change in the future. And having many spies makes refactoring difficult since we need to update tests that should not have been broken to being with, since the input and output of the algorithm hasn't changed.
This is not a hard rule as spies are sometimes useful, but it should only be used when there's no other option.
**Bad:**
```ts
jest.spyOn(db, 'executeSql').mockReturnValue([
[1, 'row 1'],
[2, 'row 2'],
]);
const rows = await service.fetchAll();
expect(rows[0][1]).to('row 1');
expect(rows[1][1]).to('row 2');
```
**Good:**
```ts
// Create the actual rows instead of mocking the data. Of course
// that requires setting up the database for testing.