feat: Convert project_config_schema and json_schema_validator modules to TS

[yavorona]

Summary

Convert project_config_schema and json_schema_validator modules from JS to TS.

Test plan

• Manual testing using local build and linked Node app
• Existing unit tests

[mikeproeng37]

I think instead of using Record... you wanna just use any so we can validate anything against this. An alternative type to use maybe would be JSON

[yavorona]

I have tried any before , which gives Argument 'jsonObject' should be typed with a non-any type error. Did not think of JSON, thanks @mikeng13!

[mikeproeng37]

I think it makes sense to keep the export default schema here since we will only have main export from this module.

Then down below instead of importing import { schema } .... you would simply import schema from ...

[mjc1283]

I think it's better to define the variable as having JSONSchema4 type in the first place, rather than coercing it here with as. Any issue doing it that way?

const schemaDefinition: JSONSchema4 = {
  // ...
};

[yavorona]

@mjc1283 I agree, but I have tried it this way, and it complains Type '{ projectId: { type: "string"; required: true; }; accountId: ... ... }] is not assignable to type '{ [k: string]: JSONSchema4; }'. 😕

[yavorona]

As discussed, I will create additional Jira tasks to fix/improve json schema validation and to document all the changes that we should do. I left const schema = schemaDefinition as JSONSchema4 so that all our unit tests can still pass without having to modify any of json schema files. FYI @mjc1283 @mikeng13

[mjc1283]

JSON isn't the right type for this. This JSON is the global JSON object with methods parse and stringify. See here.

I think the right type for this is {}, an empty object with no properties. This is what's expected as the jsonSchemaValidate function's first argument.

[yavorona]

@mjc1283 Here is the eslint error from using {} (which is not intuitive at all IMO):

error  Don't use `{}` as a type. `{}` actually means "any non-nullish value".
- If you want a type meaning "any object", you probably want `Record<string, unknown>` instead.
- If you want a type meaning "any value", you probably want `unknown` instead  @typescript-eslint/ban-types

Looks like Omit<Record<any, never>, keyof any> can be used for explicitly empty object or something less strict like Record<string, never> . Any thoughts @mjc1283?

[mjc1283]

Hmm yea, this is forbidden by our lint rules. Actually I'm not sure why - I'm going to research it. Let's change it to unknown.

[mikeproeng37]

lgtm