feat: Use tsx instead of ts-node

[roninjin10]

• use tsx instead of tsnode

Why?

Tsx is much much much faster

At the core, tsx is powered by esbuild for blazing fast TypeScript compilation, whereas ts-node (by default) uses the TypeScript compiler. Because esbuild doesn't type check, tsx is similar to ts-node --esm --swc (which uses the SWC compiler).

Tsx is much lower maintenence cost

Compared to alternatives things tend to "just work" when it comes to tsx. As an concrete example, if we added viem to any of our packages and tried to use ts-node things would fall over until a JavaScript nerd who understands ESM modules fixed it.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 167373b

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

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for opstack-docs canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	167373b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/opstack-docs/deploys/64bb087048d23c0007c1b093

[roninjin10]

Current dependencies on/for this PR:

• develop
  • PR feat: Use tsx instead of ts-node #6214 👈
    • PR chore(contracts-bedrock): pnpm up --latest #6795
      • PR chore(chain-mon): pnpm up --latest #6796
        • PR chore(core-utils): pnpm up --latest #6797

This comment was auto-generated by Graphite.

[roninjin10]

Looks broken atm but this pr is still open because feedback on the approach is still important

[roninjin10]

hmm not sure why this is broke these are wierd failures draft for now

[tynes]

seems like a versioning thing? could prob drop ledger support if necessary

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 14 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days.

[roninjin10]

This pr failing is odd gonna rebase and try again

[mergify]

Hey @roninjin10! This PR has merge conflicts. Please fix them before continuing review.

[tynes]

@roninjin10 I think 1 more rebase should fix the issues we were seeing previously

[roninjin10]

hardhat is very fragile it appears. Will need to pull pr down locallyt to debug. The failures are unrelated to tsx and have to do more with how type resolution changed after uninstalling ts-node.

[mergify]

Hey @roninjin10! This PR has merge conflicts. Please fix them before continuing review.

[mergify]

Hey @roninjin10! This PR has merge conflicts. Please fix them before continuing review.

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 14 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days.

[roninjin10]

Got catching up to do likely will get to this pr next week. I think by now it might "just work". If I remember correctly it was failing before because hardhat types depended on some peer deps installed by ts-node. The failures were actually good failures in the sense of typescript was correctly being conservative where before it was too loose

[tynes]

Got catching up to do likely will get to this pr next week. I think by now it might "just work". If I remember correctly it was failing before because hardhat types depended on some peer deps installed by ts-node. The failures were actually good failures in the sense of typescript was correctly being conservative where before it was too loose

thanks for thinking of this PR will, would be nice to get this in, it still throws errors for me but i haven't rebased

[refcell]

Just a bump on this PR @roninjin10

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6214 (5a214f7) into develop (c1dfb95) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6214      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    44.77%   44.76%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          375      375              
  Lines        29468    29476       +8     
  Branches      1688     1692       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits         13194    13195       +1     
- Misses       14832    14841       +9     
+ Partials      1442     1440       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
bedrock-go-tests	47.77% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
cannon-go-tests	64.18% <ø> (ø)
chain-mon-tests	26.95% <ø> (ø)
common-ts-tests	26.82% <ø> (ø)
contracts-bedrock-tests	∅ <ø> (∅)
contracts-ts-tests	6.88% <ø> (ø)
core-utils-tests	44.24% <ø> (ø)
sdk-next-tests	41.75% <0.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️
sdk-tests	41.75% <0.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...ages/common-ts/src/base-service/base-service-v2.ts	9.09% <ø> (ø)
packages/sdk/tasks/finalize-withdrawal.ts	12.06% <0.00%> (-1.94%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes