[No QA] Remove unsafe assertions from DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts

[KJ21-ENG]

Explanation of Change

Removed @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations from tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts as part of the cleanup for Expensify/App issue #94739.

What changed:

• Replaced unsafe assertions with typed Octokit fixture factories, request adapters, and runtime narrowing.
• Preserved the original 25 test scenarios and 46 assertions.
• Isolated shared fixtures and made fake-timer cleanup explicit.
• Derived endpoint types from GithubUtils.octokit to avoid introducing a direct unlisted package dependency, and added a scoped spelling exception for the GitHub API field rebaseable.

Why this approach is safe:

• Only test setup, typing, and test isolation changed; production code is unchanged.
• Existing deploy-checklist behavior is covered by the preserved scenarios and explicit edge-case assertions.

Reviewer focus:

1. Confirm the typed Octokit mocks and runtime narrowing preserve the existing test behavior.
2. Confirm the empty-body, retry, cross-check, fixture-isolation, and fake-timer scenarios remain meaningful.

Safety checks:

• Focused lint, Knip delta, spellcheck, formatting, diff hygiene, independent reviews, and Fork CI match the exact publication head.

Fixed Issues

$ #94739
PROPOSAL: #94739 (comment)

Count change

Current baseline source:

• config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv

Before:

• tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts: 24 violations

After:

• tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts: 0 violations

Net reduction:

• 24 fewer @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-type-assertion violations.

TSV evidence:

• Writable lint removed the target row when the count reached zero.
• The generated TSV was restored byte-for-byte and is intentionally not included in this PR because Expensify/App post-merge automation tightens the baseline on main.

Tests

1. Run:

   npm run lint -- --show-warnings tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts
   

   Verify focused lint passes with no target-rule warnings for the edited file.

2. Run:

   CI=true npm run lint -- --no-cache --show-warnings tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts
   

   Verify the generated seatbelt row reflects 0 violations, then restore config/eslint/eslint.seatbelt.tsv before committing.

3. Run:

   npm run test -- tests/unit/DeployChecklistUtilsTest.ts
   

   Verify the focused test suite passes.

4. Verification result: The focused Jest suite passed all 25 scenarios and 46 assertions, with focused lint, Knip delta, spellcheck, formatting, TypeScript diagnostics, randomized Jest.

Offline tests

Not applicable: this test-only type-safety cleanup adds no network behavior.

QA Steps

Not applicable: production behavior and UI are unchanged.

PR Author Checklist

• I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
• I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
  • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
  • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
  • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
  • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
  • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
• I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
• I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
  • Android: Native
  • Android: mWeb Chrome
  • iOS: Native
  • iOS: mWeb Safari
  • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
• I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
• I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
  • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
  • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
  • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
• If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
• I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
• I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
• If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
  • A similar style doesn't already exist
  • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
• If new assets were added or existing ones were modified, I verified that:
  • The assets are optimized and compressed (for SVG files, run npm run compress-svg)
  • The assets load correctly across all supported platforms.
• If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
• If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
• If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
• If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
• If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
  • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
  • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
• I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
• If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

Android: mWeb Chrome

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

iOS: Native

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

iOS: mWeb Safari

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Not applicable: only a unit-test source file changed.

Not applicable: there are no user-interface changes.