style: remove eslint with frontend code removal ADR

[robrap]

Description

• Add ADR for frontend code removal
• Drop eslint, as explained in the ADR

Supporting information

See new ADR for details.

Other information

• package-lock.json has not yet been rebuilt. How is this done properly?
• eslint related comments have been left in place, and will go away with the javascript files.
• there may be other clean-up possible, but this is a start.

[bradenmacdonald]

package-lock.json has not yet been rebuilt. How is this done properly?

Delete it and run npm install to re-generate it. This may lead to different versions of indirect dependencies being installed though.

[bradenmacdonald]

This makes sense to me. I haven't tested this branch but I imagine removing lint tooling is low risk.

[robrap]

Author's Note:

• This change (updating package-lock.json) broke the build with failing JS tests. :)
• In devstack, I have npm 10.5.2, and the CI checks are using 10.7.x. I don't know the importance of that for running npm install.
• The resultant file here seems to still install eslint.
• There are so many changes, including odd changes like dropping the license from many dependencies, so I'm not sure if I'm just building the file incorrectly.

Possible next steps:

1. Someone with more expertise and interest decides to land this, or
2. I open an issue and point to this PR, which will be closed as not-completed. This was meant to be a quick win, worth skipping an issue for, but that has turned out not to be the case for me.
   FYI: @feanil @arbrandes @bradenmacdonald

[kdmccormick]

I think I'm missing the context that led to this decision. Have people been finding themselves blocked by eslint? I don't feel strongly that we need to keep eslint--just looking to understand the motivation and priority level behind getting rid of it.

[robrap]

I think I'm missing the context that led to this decision.

This is partly captured in the ADR in this PR. Some additional context;

• Gitgub tries to be helpful and creates comments with violations on to PRs, including for files not changed (I think), which incorrectly gives the impression we want these violations fixed.
  • This could be added to the ADR.
• This came up because @bradenmacdonald was nice enough to start fixing these because they were showing up on PRs, and I/we wanted to save him time for other activities.

[kdmccormick]

Got it, ty.

Sounds like this not critical but would be a nice-to-have if someone were able to get ot over the line.

[robrap]

Sounds like this not critical but would be a nice-to-have if someone were able to get It over the line.

Exactly. Also, I updated the ADR to provide more details about why this would be nice-to-have.

[robrap]

@feanil @arbrandes: Let me know before the end of the week (March 21) if you want to take this over, or if you know you don't.

Assuming no one wants to land this now, I will:

• Create an issue around this that points to this PR.
• Create a separate PR with just the ADR.
  • Note: This ADR also captures the decision to move away from frontend code in edx-platform.
  • I'll update the ADR to point to the issue for the ESLint removal.

UPDATE: The deadline posted here was simply so I knew whether I needed to take action or not. After discussion, I'm just going to let this sit because we hope someone might land this.

[feanil]

@brian-smith-tcril can you take a look at this and help us figure out how to fix forward?

[brian-smith-tcril]

Removing eslint makes sense. How was the package-lock.json updated? For sweeping changes I generally just delete it and run npm install to generate a new one.

[feanil]

I've re-bulit the package-lock.json from scratch let's see how that goes. @robrap to close the look, I'll take over the PR and get it landed, thanks for getting it started.

[robrap]

@brian-smith-tcril @feanil: I created the lock file the way you described, but maybe I have an incompatible version of node? I don't know and needed to move on. Thank you both.

[robrap]

@feanil: I did not get to the step of building static assets because the tests were failing. Would you be able to build a sandbox?

[feanil]

Got everything squashed and rebased for merging and I've tagged it to create a sandbox now that the static asset issue has been resolved.

[brian-smith-tcril]

@robrap

maybe I have an incompatible version of node?

Ah, yeah, that can definitely cause issues. I didn't mention that I run nvm use first.

[open-craft-grove]

Sandbox deployment successful 🚀
🎓 LMS
📝 Studio
ℹ️ Grove Config, Tutor Config, Tutor Requirements

[feanil]

Sandbox looks good, I'm merging this.

[open-craft-grove]

Sandbox deployment failed 💥
Please check the settings and requirements.
Retry deployment by pushing a new commit or updating the requirements/settings in the pull request's description.
📜 Failure Logs
ℹ️ Grove Config, Tutor Config, Tutor Requirements

[robrap]

@feanil: Before merging, can you determine why the sandbox failed?

[feanil]

This second sandbox build failed in a apt update unrelated to this change, the first one succeeded so I'm comfortable merging this.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX staging environment in preparation for a release to production.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX staging environment in preparation for a release to production.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment.