feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options #57

mcansh · 2025-07-31T18:52:18Z

Signed-off-by: GitHub noreply@github.com

…error handling Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

changeset-bot · 2025-07-31T18:52:21Z

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: b60c084

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

codecov · 2025-07-31T18:52:59Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.31%. Comparing base (6d0ddbe) to head (b60c084).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #57      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.80%   97.31%   +3.50%     
==========================================
  Files          19       21       +2     
  Lines         872     1080     +208     
  Branches      215      265      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits          818     1051     +233     
+ Misses         54       29      -25

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

gemini-code-assist

Summary of Changes

Hello @mcansh, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request primarily focuses on improving the developer experience and consistency within the monorepo by introducing a new shared configuration package for tsdown, a build tool. This centralization streamlines build setups across various packages. Concurrently, the vitest-response-matchers package has undergone a substantial refactoring to enhance its reliability, type safety, and testing capabilities. Minor tooling updates and code formatting adjustments are also included to maintain overall code quality.

Highlights

Centralized tsdown Configuration: Introduced a new @mcansh/config package that provides a defaultBuildConfig and a mergeBuildConfig utility. This allows other packages in the monorepo to easily adopt and extend a standardized tsdown build configuration, reducing boilerplate and ensuring consistency.
tsdown Integration: Updated tsdown.config.ts files in http-helmet, url, and vitest-response-matchers packages to leverage the new @mcansh/config package, simplifying their build configurations.
Enhanced Vitest Response Matchers: Significantly refactored the vitest-response-matchers package. This includes introducing a new utils.ts file for common helpers, updating matcher type definitions to correctly handle asynchronous operations (e.g., toHaveJsonBody, toHaveTextBody, toThrowResponse) by returning Promise<MatcherResult>, improving the robustness of existing matchers with better error handling and more comprehensive test cases, and extending toMatchResponse to support header matching.
Tooling and Dependency Updates: Updated various monorepo-level configurations and dependencies, including adding tsgo for type checking, integrating prettier-plugin-jsdoc for improved JSDoc formatting, and removing custom publish.js and version.js scripts (implying reliance on standard changeset or pnpm commands).

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

pkg-pr-new · 2025-07-31T18:53:06Z

More templates

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/mcansh/packages/@mcansh/config@57

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/mcansh/packages/@mcansh/http-helmet@57

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/mcansh/packages/@mcansh/url@57

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/mcansh/packages/@mcansh/vitest-response-matchers@57

commit: b60c084

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new @mcansh/config package to centralize tsdown build configurations, which is a great step towards improving maintainability and consistency across the monorepo. The refactoring of other packages to use this new config package is well-executed and demonstrates its value.

Additionally, there are significant improvements to the @mcansh/vitest-response-matchers package, including making several matchers asynchronous for correctness and enhancing their APIs. The move to changesets for versioning and publishing by removing custom scripts is also a welcome modernization of the project's tooling.

I've identified a few areas for improvement, including a critical bug in header matching logic and a couple of high-severity issues related to package metadata and a logic regression. Addressing these will further strengthen the quality of the codebase.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-07-31T18:55:02Z

packages/vitest-response-matchers/src/matchers/to-match-response.ts

+  if (expected.headers) {
+    for (const [name, value] of Object.entries(expected.headers)) {
+      if (response.headers.get(name) !== value) {
+        return {
+          pass: false,
+          actual: {
+            status: response.status,
+            statusText: response.statusText,
+            headers: formatHeaders(response.headers),
+          },
+          expected: {
+            status: expected.status,
+            statusText: expected.statusText,
+            headers: formatHeaders(expected.headers),
+          },
+          message() {
+            return `Expected response to have (status: ${expected.status}, statusText: "${expected.statusText}"), but received (status: ${response.status}, statusText: "${response.statusText}")`;
+          },
+        };
+      }
+    }
  }


The current implementation for checking headers is incorrect. Object.entries(expected.headers) will not work as intended for Headers objects or string[][] arrays, which are valid HeadersInit types. This will cause the matcher to fail to check headers correctly in those cases.

To fix this, you should normalize expected.headers into a Headers object before iterating over it. This ensures all HeadersInit types are handled correctly. I've also improved the failure message to be more specific about which header failed.

if (expected.headers) { const expectedHeaders = new Headers(expected.headers); for (const [name, value] of expectedHeaders.entries()) { if (response.headers.get(name) !== value) { return { pass: false, actual: { status: response.status, statusText: response.statusText, headers: formatHeaders(response.headers), }, expected: { status: expected.status, statusText: expected.statusText, headers: formatHeaders(expected.headers), }, message() { return `Expected header "${name}" to be "${value}", but got "${response.headers.get( name, )}"`; }, }; } } }

gemini-code-assist · 2025-07-31T18:55:03Z

packages/config/package.json

+  "repository": {
+    "type": "git",
+    "url": "git+https://github.com/mcansh/packages.git",
+    "directory": "./packages/vitest-response-matchers"


The repository.directory field appears to have an incorrect value. It should point to this package's directory, ./packages/config, instead of ./packages/vitest-response-matchers. This could cause issues for tools that rely on this metadata for package discovery and linking.

"directory": "./packages/config"

gemini-code-assist · 2025-07-31T18:55:03Z

packages/vitest-response-matchers/src/matchers/to-throw-response.ts

+  if (!isResponse(error)) {
+    return expectedResponseError(error);
+  }
+
+  if (expected.status && expected.statusText) {
    return {
-      message: () => `Did not throw a Response`,
-      pass: false,
-      actual: error,
-      expected: `[Response]`,
+      pass:
+        error.status === expected.status &&
+        error.statusText === expected.statusText,
+      actual: { status: error.status, statusText: error.statusText },
+      expected: { status: expected.status, statusText: expected.statusText },
+      message: () => `Expected to throw a Response`,
    };
  }

-  let expectedResponse =
-    expected instanceof Response ? expected : new Response(null, expected);
-
  return {
+    pass: error.status === expected.status,
+    actual: { status: error.status },
+    expected: { status: expected.status },
    message: () => `Expected to throw a Response`,
-    pass:
-      error instanceof Response &&
-      error.status === expectedResponse.status &&
-      error.statusText === expectedResponse.statusText,
-    actual: { status: error.status, statusText: error.statusText },
-    expected: { status: expected.status, statusText: expected.statusText },
  };


This refactoring introduces a regression. The previous implementation correctly handled expected as a Response object by checking both status and statusText. The new logic may only check the status if expected.statusText is an empty string (which is the default for many status codes), because if (expected.status && expected.statusText) will evaluate to false.

To restore the correct behavior, you can normalize the expected value into a Response object before performing the comparison, similar to the original implementation.

if (!isResponse(error)) { return expectedResponseError(error); } const expectedResponse = expected instanceof Response ? expected : new Response(null, expected); return { pass: error.status === expectedResponse.status && error.statusText === expectedResponse.statusText, actual: { status: error.status, statusText: error.statusText }, expected: { status: expectedResponse.status, statusText: expectedResponse.statusText, }, message: () => `Expected to throw a Response`, };

gemini-code-assist · 2025-07-31T18:55:03Z

packages/config/src/build.ts

+      let config = mergeBuildConfig((config) => {
+        config.dts = false;
+        return {};
+      });


This test case is a bit confusing because it relies on mutating the defaultBuildConfig object. While it currently passes, this approach can be brittle and hard to reason about.

A clearer way to write this test would be to have the function return the desired configuration overrides without modifying the input object. This avoids side effects and makes the test's intent more explicit.

let config = mergeBuildConfig(() => ({ dts: false, }));

cloudflare-workers-and-pages · 2025-07-31T18:55:20Z

Deploying with Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	packages	`b60c084`	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 31 2025, 06:55 PM

mcansh added 4 commits July 30, 2025 17:15

fear: improve response matchers and add utility functions for better …

61e26ae

…error handling Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

chore: opt into tsgo for packages

2a58302

Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

chore: remove unneeded scripts and add prettier-plugin-jsdoc

f77e199

Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options

b60c084

Signed-off-by: GitHub <noreply@github.com>

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Jul 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

mcansh changed the base branch from main to dev August 5, 2025 20:03

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options #57

feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options #57

Uh oh!

mcansh commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Uh oh!

pkg-pr-new bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options #57

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: add config package to normalize tsdown options #57

Uh oh!

Conversation

mcansh commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

changeset-bot bot commented Jul 31, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

pkg-pr-new bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Jul 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Jul 31, 2025

Deploying with Cloudflare Workers

Uh oh!

Uh oh!