feat: bun related docs (@stonega)

[MasedMSD]

Originally PR was created by @stonega, but it looks like he's not going to continue with this PR. So, I think we should mention Bun as a possible way to work with a bot, even though Bun has a large number of issues. Also Bun finally supports conversations plugin and a decent part of Russian language chat users use it for their projects.

I made some changes and added Bun mentions to the hosting files documentation

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed on https://672ba04b361fba2ac161c972--grammy.netlify.app

[MasedMSD]

Should we leave index.ts or should we tell the user to create a bot.ts file each time in order for the NodeJS and Deno examples to be the same?

[KnorpelSenf]

I have now wasted more time on this than I ever wanted, maybe I'll get back to this in a week or so

[KnorpelSenf]

The bottom line of this is still that whatever we do with the tutorial, the output must look exactly like

website/site/docs/guide/getting-started.md

Lines 56 to 66 in 53c1efe

	Create a new empty text file, e.g. called `bot.ts`.
	Your folder structure should now look like this:
	```asciiart:no-line-numbers
	.
	├── bot.ts
	├── node_modules/
	├── package.json
	├── package-lock.json
	└── tsconfig.json
	```

and the file contents need to be the same, too. I still do not really care how that is achieved, the point is that as long as the bun guide does not lead to the correct setup, then this cannot be merged.

[MasedMSD]

I'll get into this page in more detail tomorrow

[KnorpelSenf]

Remember to merge main in order to fix CI

[KnorpelSenf]

Scratch that, it already happened

[KnorpelSenf]

I even did it myself *facepalm*

[KnorpelSenf]

This still does not create the same TS config as tsc --init if I understand this correctly

[MasedMSD]

Unfortunately we can't fix it. We will have to ask the user to change it manually every time.
But I don't understand the point of this, because everything works with the current tsconfig O.O

[KnorpelSenf]

Yeah but I don't want to go through all the code examples and make sure that they compile even with the non-standard TS config that bun introduces. It can be fixed very easily by running tsc --init in the getting started guide.

[quadratz]

@KnorpelSenf : Yeah but I don't want to go through all the code examples and make sure that they compile even with the non-standard TS config that bun introduces. It can be fixed very easily by running tsc --init in the getting started guide.

@MasedMSD: But I don't understand the point of this, because everything works with the current tsconfig O.O

I am agree with @MasedMSD. I don't see any problem with the default generated tsconfig.json. Pretty sure it works well with our examples.

[KnorpelSenf]

@KnorpelSenf : Yeah but I don't want to go through all the code examples and make sure that they compile even with the non-standard TS config that bun introduces. It can be fixed very easily by running tsc --init in the getting started guide.

@MasedMSD: But I don't understand the point of this, because everything works with the current tsconfig O.O

I am agree with @MasedMSD. I don't see any problem with the default generated tsconfig.json. Pretty sure it works well with our examples.

Then please go through them and verify this. Also, please test all future changes to the docs for bun compatibility. I don't care what the config file contains, I just won't double the time I spend on code examples just to make a few bun users happy.

[MasedMSD]

Fine, so we going to use this solution?

[KnorpelSenf]

Only as soon as we find somebody who actually puts in the work and makes sure that the code examples work. I don't want to merge docs that don't type-check because then I'm gonna be the one who has to deal with all the complaints.

If somebody is willing to

• make sure that the current docs type-check, and
• make sure that all future docs type-check

then we can ship docs that use a new TS config setup.

[MasedMSD]

@KnorpelSenf It would be useful to create some package for easy unit testing of the bot.
I don't think that's possible given the flood handling by telegram

[KnorpelSenf]

Is that in any way related to the current pull request?

[MasedMSD]

I mean that we should have some kind of tests to make sure that the bot and the code work. For example, as for the situation now, when we can't be sure that bun will pass all type-checks

[KnorpelSenf]

That's why you have to test it, or adjust the TS config. But I'm beginning to repeat myself a little

[winstxnhdw]

I mean that we should have some kind of tests to make sure that the bot and the code work. For example, as for the situation now, when we can't be sure that bun will pass all type-checks

It’ll be hard to write integration tests for Bun and grammY because the existing test suite is in Deno. We’d have to spend a lot of time instrumenting some Docker CI test just specifically for Bun, and I am not sure if it’s worth the effort.

[KnorpelSenf]

There's no need to actually run any tests, why do you think this? I can't follow