fix: Use TestAgentPromptConfig type

[jimbojw]

Update testAgentConfig() method to use TestAgentPromptConfig type.

[jimbojw]

@rasmi Not sure how this happened. In PR #955, you had renamed BaseAgentPromptConfig to TestAgentPromptConfig, but somehow there's a lingering BaseAgentPromptConfig reference in experiment.manager.ts as of now.

This PR corrects the situation, but it's not clear to me how the codebase could have come to be in this state? As is, the frontend doesn't build, so one would expect that whatever combination of PRs led to this state should have failed the GitHub Actions checks.

[rasmi]

#912 didn't properly merge / rebase the changes from the chat refactor (looks like this just happened yesterday): 7823b27

@mkbehr -- there was a pretty substantial chat refactor, I think #912 can be simplified a bit!

[jimbojw]

Thanks Rasmi, you're right, that was the cause of the regression.

I think I found the root cause that prevented GitHub Actions from detecting the issue. Our ci.yaml runs npm test for the frontend workspace, BUT it doesn't actually run npm build. It does build both utils and functions, just not frontend.

So, if I understand correctly, as long as the frontend tests only touch buildable code, they can run and pass. Since the offending line was in a file outside the tested files' dependency trees, the build failure wasn't caught.

I'm writing up a GitHub Issue to track this CI enhancement/bug.

[rasmi]

Very curious!! I would have expected local building or type-checking to catch this, but I realize it's because I always develop with the hot reload server running, so it's always building locally. But not necessarily on GH actions / after merges in main. Good catch 🙏

[rasmi]

I wonder if we should adjust the CI commands so that test is always build+test (never just test alone)? Or just add a separate build step like the others have?

[jimbojw]

@rasmi Either way would work. I tend to prefer to have GitHub Action steps be more atomic. That makes it easier to see which step failed when investigating. I've written up my proposal for building the frontend in #998.

[jimbojw]

@rasmi As I see it, for this issue (the TestAgentPromptConfig regression) we have three paths forward:

1. Merge this PR to fix the immediate build problem.
2. Rollback Improve API key testing. #912 to fix the immediate build problem.
3. Develop a new PR to address the simplifications you mentioned that should now be possible.

Thoughts?

[rasmi]

I feel fine just merging this fix and sending a follow-up for the other comments (can take care of it later)! Defer to you!