Skip to content

[No QA] fix: update Knip for Bun shell interpolation - #100329

Merged
roryabraham merged 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
margelo:@chrispader/fix-knip-bun-shell-interpolation
Sep 4, 2026
Merged

roryabraham merged 1 commit into
Expensify:mainfrom
margelo:@chrispader/fix-knip-bun-shell-interpolation

Conversation

@chrispader

@chrispader chrispader commented Sep 3, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

cc @roryabraham

Knip 6.14.0 parses each static fragment of an interpolated Bun shell template as a standalone command. In the benchmarking PR #98144, this makes api in $`${ghExecutable} api user --jq .login` look like an undeclared executable and fails the Knip workflow. This PR updates Knip to 6.34.0, which includes the upstream interpolation fix, so the benchmarking PR can use Bun shell without adding argument names to ignoreBinaries.

Explanation of Change

Knip fixed interpolated Bun shell parsing in version 6.25.0 by reconstructing the entire tagged template before extracting binaries. This change updates Knip from 6.14.0 to 6.34.0 and refreshes the lockfile. The newer version also recognizes gh as a system executable, so the benchmarking PR only needs to ignore binaries that Knip cannot identify itself.

Upstream context: webpro-nl/knip#1867 and the fixing commit.

Fixed Issues

$ #100330
PROPOSAL: #100330

Tests

  1. Check out the changes from benchmarking PR #98144.
  2. Run KNIP=true nlx knip@6.14.0 --include binaries --reporter compact --no-exit-code.
  3. Verify Knip reports scripts/bootstrapForDevice.ts: api as an unlisted binary.
  4. Run KNIP=true nlx knip@6.34.0 --include binaries --reporter compact --no-exit-code.
  5. Verify Knip no longer reports api as a binary.
  6. On this PR, run nr knip and verify it completes without new binary findings.
  • Verify that no unexpected command errors appear

Offline tests

Not applicable. This changes a static development dependency used by local and CI analysis and does not change app network behavior.

QA Steps

This cannot be tested in staging or production. The PR changes development tooling only and does not affect app code or runtime behavior.

  • Verify that no unexpected command errors appear

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
    • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
    • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

No screenshots or videos are included because this PR only updates a development dependency and its lockfile. It does not change the app UI or runtime behavior.

Android: Native

Not applicable.

Android: mWeb Chrome

Not applicable.

iOS: Native

Not applicable.

iOS: mWeb Safari

Not applicable.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Not applicable.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ This PR is possibly changing native code and/or updating libraries, it may cause problems with HybridApp. Please check if any patch updates are required in the HybridApp repo and run an AdHoc build to verify that HybridApp will not break. Ask Contributor Plus for help if you are not sure how to handle this. ⚠️

@chrispader

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@MelvinBot create a GitHub issue for this PR and assign @chrispader to it. Update this PR's ### Fixed Issues section to link to the new issue.

Use this issue title:

Knip misidentifies Bun shell arguments as binaries

Use this issue description:

Problem

Knip 6.14.0 parses each static fragment of an interpolated Bun shell template as a standalone command. In benchmarking PR #98144, the command $`${ghExecutable} api user --jq .login` therefore makes Knip treat api as an undeclared executable. This causes the Knip workflow to fail even though api is an argument passed to the gh CLI.

This is the same parsing limitation reported in webpro-nl/knip#1867. It blocks the benchmarking PR from using Bun shell naturally unless command arguments are incorrectly added to ignoreBinaries.

Solution

Update Knip to 6.34.0 in PR #100329. Knip fixed interpolated Bun shell parsing in version 6.25.0 by reconstructing the entire tagged template before extracting binaries, and the current release includes that fix. The update also recognizes gh as a system executable, so the benchmarking PR only needs to ignore binaries that Knip cannot identify itself.

Upstream fix: webpro-nl/knip@9422d06

@MelvinBot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Created #100330 — "Knip misidentifies Bun shell arguments as binaries" — and assigned chrispader to it.

I also updated this PR's ### Fixed Issues section to link the issue:

$ https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/100330

I found no existing Knip-related issue covering this, so no duplicate was filed.


view run

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 3, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
see 15 files with indirect coverage changes

@chrispader
chrispader marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2026 17:09
@chrispader
chrispader requested a review from a team as a code owner September 3, 2026 17:09
@melvin-bot
melvin-bot Bot requested review from Pujan92 and removed request for a team September 3, 2026 17:09
@melvin-bot

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Pujan92 Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 3, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-03T17:20:37.695256Z 3159106 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@roryabraham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Reviewer Checklist

  • I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
  • I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
    • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
    • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
    • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: HybridApp
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: HybridApp
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
  • If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
  • I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • The file is named correctly
    • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: HybridApp
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari

@roryabraham
roryabraham merged commit aa71ced into Expensify:main Sep 4, 2026
46 of 52 checks passed
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚧 roryabraham has triggered a test Expensify/App build. You can view the workflow run here.

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.4.73-0 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌

@OSBotify

OSBotify commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.4.73-3 🚀

platform result
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

Bundle Size Analysis (Sentry):

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants