Update MathJS to v12.4.3 and handle the new approach to scope/partitioned map

[pjanik]

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/187950451

This fix doesn't look pretty, but it seems to work. @kswenson, you're right that the problematic change on the MathJS side was introduced here: https://github.com/josdejong/mathjs/pull/3150.

[cypress[bot]]

3 flaky tests on run #3835 ↗︎

0

201

28

0

3

Details:

Merge pull request #1371 from concord-consortium/187950451-mathjs-update
Project: codap-v3	Commit: aa877f665d
Status: Passed	Duration: 10:12 💡
Started: Jul 25, 2024 10:32 AM	Ended: Jul 25, 2024 10:42 AM

  table.spec.ts • 1 flaky test

View Output

Test		Artifacts
case table ui > table cell editing > edits cells		Test Replay Screenshots

  slider.spec.ts • 2 flaky tests

View Output

Test		Artifacts
Slider UI > updates variable name		Test Replay Screenshots
Slider UI > adds new variable value		Test Replay Screenshots

Review all test suite changes for PR #1371 ↗︎

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 83.03%. Comparing base (b308ce7) to head (30cd1c4). Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1371 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 85.84% 83.03% -2.82% ========================================== Files 521 521 Lines 25266 25281 +15 Branches 6875 6831 -44 ========================================== - Hits 21690 20992 -698 - Misses 3301 3983 +682 - Partials 275 306 +31 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1371/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [cypress](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1371/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `67.22% <96.87%> (-5.72%)` | :arrow_down: | | [jest](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1371/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `53.51% <100.00%> (+0.02%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[kswenson]

Also, since PartitionedMap has no meaning in CODAP, perhaps we can call it something like scopeMap when used as an argument that might give some indication of its purpose.

[pjanik]

@kswenson, sorry, I actually forgot to push the last changes, that's why the test was broken. The last commit fixes that and reactors a few things a bit.

I've actually added a type called MathJSPartitionedMap. Not sure, but I'd actually suggest to keep it, as that's what might allow us to orient ourselves in the MathJS code. If it's just scope, it can be confusing. While paritionedMap doesn't say much in CODAP, it's something passed from MathJS, and at least it explains why we need to access .a property.

A comment that explains how this interacts with MathJS would be very helpful. I'm interested in the question of whether we're relying on documented aspects of MathJS

I based that implementation on the fact that the official documentation described scope as an object that implements the Map interface, and also on this example (which seems to be outdated now, btw): https://mathjs.org/examples/advanced/custom_scope_objects.js.html But apparently, MathJS isn't that strict about that, and the the example is now outdated and nonfunctional.

My last commit adds a comment about all that where the MathJSPartitionedMap is defined.

I'm also talking directly to MathJS maintainer: https://github.com/josdejong/mathjs/pull/3150 He's very responsive. Apparently, they might be considering a better solution for our use case. It would be good if someone else also follows that thread in the PR in case I'm working on another project when the fix arrives. I'll get notified anyway, but just in case.

[pjanik]

@kswenson, small update. I think this long conversation between the MathJS maintainer and me can actually answer some of your questions whether we're using documented or undocumented features (there's no clear answer, but I think we're fine at this point): https://github.com/josdejong/mathjs/pull/3150

I'm going to modify this PR to implement getRootScope as suggested here: https://github.com/josdejong/mathjs/pull/3150#issuecomment-2248101774 This seems to be safe enough approach. At least the main maintainer is now aware of the issues. :wink: I also asked if they could export getRootScope helper themselves. That would be even safer, and it'd be easy to update our code.

[pjanik]

Okay, I've just pushed the final commit. I followed the suggested approach: https://github.com/josdejong/mathjs/pull/3150#issuecomment-2248101774 I could make checks more strict, but this would make testing more annoying, so I hope it's a reasonable compromise.

I hope that new types and variable names are also clearer.