test: add package export smoke checks

[Herrtian]

Closes #62

Adds a package export smoke check that packs the core, server, and web packages, installs the tarballs into a temporary fixture, compiles ESM and CJS consumers, and runs both outputs.

Checks:

• npm run build
• npm run test:package-exports
• npx eslint scripts/test-package-exports.mjs
• npx prettier --check scripts/test-package-exports.mjs package.json .github/workflows/pr-checks.yaml
• git diff --check

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new test script, test-package-exports.mjs, and adds a corresponding test:package-exports entry to package.json. The script automates the validation of package exports by packing local workspaces, installing them into a temporary fixture project, and verifying that both ESM and CommonJS outputs compile and execute correctly. I have no feedback to provide as there were no review comments.

[toddbaert]

Thanks @Herrtian . I will take a look.

[toddbaert]

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Full review finished.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: c22865b4-e0d1-44f6-b9d3-f8d966c125ba

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a68edf1 and 86e6c1d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• scripts/test-package-exports.mjs

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• scripts/test-package-exports.mjs

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A new Node.js ESM script (scripts/test-package-exports.mjs) is added to validate SDK package exports for both ESM and CJS by packing workspaces into tarballs, generating TypeScript fixture projects, compiling with tsc, and executing the compiled outputs. The script is registered as test:package-exports in package.json and invoked in a new CI step after the build step.

Changes

Package exports ESM/CJS integration test

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Script setup, constants, utilities, and fixture source generation scripts/test-package-exports.mjs	Defines workspace/package lists, fixture flag config, promisified execFileAsync run helper with stdout/stderr capture, cross-platform npm wrapper, packPackage() for tarball creation, and sourceFor() to emit TypeScript that imports InMemoryProvider/OpenFeature, ErrorCode, and ServerProviderStatus, then asserts expected values.
Fixture project file writing scripts/test-package-exports.mjs	Implements writeFixture(), which writes the fixture package.json and tsconfig.json, then calls sourceFor() to generate per-SDK .mts and .cts entrypoint files.
Pack, install, compile, and execute orchestration scripts/test-package-exports.mjs	Implements main(): creates a temp dir, packs each workspace, writes the fixture, installs tarballs with --ignore-scripts, runs tsc, executes each SDK's .mjs and .cjs outputs, and cleans up via a finally block. Invoked at module load via top-level await.
npm script and CI step wiring package.json, .github/workflows/pr-checks.yaml	Adds test:package-exports script entry in package.json and inserts a "Test package exports" CI step after the Build step in the PR checks workflow.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'test: add package export smoke checks' directly and clearly describes the main change: adding a new package export smoke test.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is related to the changeset, explaining what the package export smoke check does and listing the checks performed.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	All code changes fully implement the requirements from issue #62: a new test script packages tarballs locally and imports them in ESM/CJS test applications, compiles, and runs both to validate dual-format exports work correctly.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly scoped to implementing the package export smoke check feature: the test script, workflow configuration, and package.json script addition are all necessary for this objective.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@scripts/test-package-exports.mjs`:
- Around line 14-15: The sdkPackages array is missing the `@openfeature/core`
package, which causes the smoke check test to skip generating and executing
ESM/CJS fixture imports for the core package. Add '`@openfeature/core`' to the
sdkPackages array definition so that the subsequent test logic (which iterates
over this array) will properly generate and execute fixture imports for all
three packages (core, server, and web), ensuring complete coverage of the PR
objective.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: e22b902d-61a3-4b16-9f36-d125f642ad50

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3c01041 and a68edf1.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/workflows/pr-checks.yaml
• package.json
• scripts/test-package-exports.mjs

[toddbaert]

Thanks @Herrtian . This looks great. I can't see any issues.

I wouldn't worry about Nest/Angular/React due to what I mention here.

I'll leave this open for a bit for other reviews, but merge next week. Thanks again!