chore(deps): upgrade ESLint from v8 to v9

[dependabot]

Commit Type

• feature - New functionality
• fix - Bug fix
• refactor - Code restructuring without behavior change
• perf - Performance improvement
• docs - Documentation update
• test - Test-related changes
• chore - Maintenance/tooling

Risk Level

• Low - Minor changes, limited scope
• Medium - Moderate changes, some user impact
• High - Major changes, significant user/system impact

What & Why

This PR upgrades ESLint from version 8.57.1 to 9.26.0, a major version upgrade. ESLint v9 includes:

• New MCP server support
• TypeScript syntax support in multiple rules (no-empty-function, no-unused-expressions, no-invalid-this, no-loop-func)
• New features like reportGlobalThis for no-shadow-restricted-names, suggestions for eqeqeq, ignoreDirectives option in no-unused-expressions
• Various bug fixes and performance improvements

This upgrade ensures we stay current with the latest linting capabilities and security patches.

Impact of Change

• Users: None - internal tooling change
• Developers: ESLint v9 may flag additional issues or have different behavior for some rules. Review any new linting warnings/errors after merge.
• System: Updated dependency tree in pnpm-lock.yaml. Build and lint processes should continue to work normally.

Test Plan

• Unit tests added/updated
• E2E tests added/updated
• Manual testing completed
• Tested in: CI pipeline should validate linting passes

Contributors

Auto-generated by Dependabot

Screenshots/Videos

N/A - No visual changes

[github-actions]

🤖 AI PR Validation Report

PR Review Results

Thank you for your submission! Here's detailed feedback on your PR title and body compliance:

✅ PR Title

• Current: chore(deps): upgrade ESLint from v8 to v9
• Issue: None — title follows conventional commit style and concisely describes the change.
• Recommendation: Title is good. Optionally include the target version numbers for extra clarity (e.g. chore(deps): upgrade ESLint 8.57.1 → 9.26.0).

---

✅ Commit Type

• Properly selected (chore).
• Only one box is checked in the Commit Type section which is correct for this PR (dependency maintenance).

---

❌ Risk Level

• Assessment: The PR body marks the Risk Level as Low and the PR has the risk:low label, but the code diff shows a major ESLint bump (v8 → v9) and large lockfile changes (pnpm-lock.yaml) that introduce many updated transitive packages and packages with newer engine requirements. These changes can affect CI, linting behavior, toolchains, and developer environment compatibility.
• Recommendation: Update the risk level to Medium (or provide a strong justification for Low) and update the PR label accordingly. If you want to keep Low, explicitly document why this major bump is safe (for example: confirmed Node engine & CI compatibility, verified that the changes are only devDependencies and do not affect runtime, and CI + tests already validated).

Notes to help justify risk level:

• Call out whether Node versions/engine requirements changed anywhere (lockfile shows many packages now requiring modern Node versions such as >=18.18.0). Ensure CI and developer machines use compatible Node versions.
• State whether ESLint is only a dev-time tool here (it appears so) and confirm that no runtime dependencies changed.

---

✅ What & Why

• Current: "This PR upgrades ESLint from version 8.57.1 to 9.26.0... This upgrade ensures we stay current with the latest linting capabilities and security patches." (full section present)
• Issue: Good summary. Missing explicit notes about Node engine implications and the exact files changed (package.json and pnpm-lock.yaml, plus one test file change).
• Recommendation: Add a short bullet to the What & Why mentioning:
  • Files changed (package.json and pnpm-lock.yaml; one test spec updated).
  • Whether this requires a Node version bump for dev environment/CI (and if so, which version).
  • A short plan for addressing any newly flagged lint errors (e.g., a follow-up commit or a codemod).

Also note: I found a test/spec change in the diff: libs/designer-v2/.../TreeActionItem.spec.tsx changed expected text from matching /5/ to '5s' — call that out in the PR description so reviewers know you adapted tests as part of the dependency upgrade.

⚠️ Impact of Change

• Impact section is present and generally correct, but please expand a little.
• Recommendation: Make the impact explicit:
  • Users: None (internal tooling) — keep this line.
  • Developers: Add explicit steps: e.g., "Developers may see different lint rules and new warnings/errors after upgrade; run pnpm install and pnpm lint locally and address issues." Also list if any editor/IDE plugin needs updates.
  • System: Mention the pnpm-lock.yaml changes and potential Node engine changes. Confirm CI Node version and any pipeline changes required.

---

⚠️ Test Plan

• Assessment: You selected manual testing and indicated CI pipeline should validate linting passes. There is also a test file update in the diff (TreeActionItem.spec.tsx), but no new unit or E2E tests were added.
• Issue: If no Unit/E2E tests are added you should provide a clear explanation of how the changes were validated. The current explanation is short — please include commands, CI job names, and the outcome.
• Recommendation: Expand the Test Plan with specifics:
  • Which CI job(s) you observed passing (e.g., ci/lint, ci/build, etc.) and include run links or timestamps if possible.
  • Local commands you ran (example: pnpm -w install && pnpm -w lint && pnpm -w test) and whether they passed.
  • Mention the single test change found and why it was updated (e.g., changed formatting output from 5 to 5s after formatting rule change).
  • If you opted not to add unit/E2E tests, state why and provide mitigation (e.g., follow-up PR to handle code fixes uncovered by new lint rules if needed).

---

✅ Contributors

• Current: "Auto-generated by Dependabot"
• Assessment: Acceptable. The Contributors section exists and indicates Dependabot. No action required unless you want to credit additional reviewers.

---

✅ Screenshots/Videos

• Current: N/A — no UI change. This is acceptable.

---

Summary Table

Section	Status	Recommendation
Title	✅	Title is fine; optional: include versions in title for clarity.
Commit Type	✅	Correctly selected chore.
Risk Level	❌	Change label to risk:medium or expand PR body to justify Low (explain Node engine compatibility, CI success, no runtime changes).
What & Why	✅	Add explicit mention of files changed and Node engine/CI considerations.
Impact of Change	⚠️	Expand Developer/System impact details (lint behavior, Node engines, CI jobs).
Test Plan	⚠️	Add concrete test/verifications (CI job names/links, local commands and outcomes). Explain why unit/E2E tests were not added.
Contributors	✅	Dependabot noted — OK.
Screenshots/Videos	✅	N/A - ok for non-visual change.

---

Final notes & actions required:

1. Risk label mismatch: please change the PR label from risk:low to risk:medium, or update the PR body to justify keeping Low (explicitly show CI passes and state why the change is safe for all developers and systems). I recommend risk:medium given the major ESLint bump and extensive lockfile changes.
2. Update the Test Plan section with the exact CI job(s) that passed and the commands you ran locally to validate (include outcomes). If you relied on CI, include the job names and an assertion the new linter rules were executed/green.
3. Add a short note in What & Why and Impact of Change stating whether Node engine requirements changed for developers/CI and whether any machines need Node version upgrades.
4. Mention the test change (TreeActionItem.spec.tsx: expected value changed to 5s) and the reason for that change.
5. If there are any manual changes required to the ESLint config after this upgrade (rule changes, removals), either make them or list them as follow-up work.

Once you make these small updates (risk label or justification, expanded Test Plan, Node/caveats notes), re-run CI and update the PR so reviewers can quickly re-check. Thank you for keeping dependencies up to date — these details will help reviewers and maintainers accept the change with confidence.

---

Last updated: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:27:53 GMT

[github-actions]

📊 Coverage check completed. See workflow run for details.

[github-actions]

📊 Coverage check completed. See workflow run for details.

[github-actions]

📊 Coverage check completed. See workflow run for details.