Convert the "Taxonomy" app to 100% TypeScript

[bradenmacdonald]

Description

This is a PR generated 95% by Claude Code to convert the taxonomy app in frontend-app-authoring to TypeScript.

Supporting information

Prompts:

Go through the files in src/taxonomy/ and convert each .jsx file to a .tsx file. Convert propTypes to TypeScript types, and replace defaultProps with ES6 default parameters.

(It created new .tsx files, but didn't delete the old .jsx)

I see the new converted .tsx files, but the .jsx files are also still there.

Great! Please check the result with 'npm run types'

commit the changes, using a conventional commits message like "refactor: convert taxonomy app to TypeScript"

(Then I noticed it hadn't converted some .js files)

Please run: find src/taxonomy -name '*.js'

(this made the AI realize it had missed a few files, and it then converted them and committed changes all on its own. In retrospect, I did say to only convert '.jsx' not '.js and .jsx' so that was an incomplete instruction.)

Please lint the code with npm run lint, and fix the errors

( I pushed, and GitHub CI showed a test failure)

Please run 'npm test -- --coverage=no --bail src/taxonomy/manage-orgs/ManageOrgsModal.test.tsx' and fix the test error it gives.

(It made a fix that I didn't like)

Let's revise that last fix to ManageOrgsModal.test.tsx. I'd like you to solve it differently. The 'orgs' value was defined fine, and I prefer that we use it instead of repeating the definition. The problem is this, from the Jest docs: 'A limitation with the factory parameter is that, since calls to jest.mock() are hoisted to the top of the file, it's not possible to first define a variable and then use it in the factory. An exception is made for variables that start with the word 'mock'.' So we need to instead rename the 'orgs' variable to 'mockOrgs' and same for the 'taxonomy' variable.

OK, please run the linter and make sure it's passing, then amend the previous commit with those changes.

Testing instructions

Manually verify the taxonomy UI is functional and unchanged.

Other information

Inspired by @regisb - https://discuss.openedx.org/t/i-just-spent-13-5-for-type-annotations-on-2-8k-lines-of-code-and-i-think-you-should-too/15977

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @bradenmacdonald!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.46154% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.97%. Comparing base (9e97805) to head (af0a18e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/taxonomy/import-tags/ImportTagsWizard.tsx	96.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2025      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.95%   93.97%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1154     1155       +1     
  Lines       24116    24204      +88     
  Branches     5219     5232      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits        22659    22746      +87     
+ Misses       1389     1381       -8     
- Partials       68       77       +9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[bmtcril]

Hi @bradenmacdonald I just wanted to make sure that you get a chance to review the brand new policy on AI code as you move forward with this: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5022416899/Open+edX+Policy+for+Generative+AI+Tools