Add module as a type of <script>

[yykamei]

Recently, JavaScript module would be getting used because almost all browsers support it, so module could also be added in VALID_JAVASCRIPT_TAG_TYPES as a type of <script>.

What do you think?

[yykamei]

I signed in the CLA.

[seanpdoyle]

Is it intentional that BetterHtml includes a set of acceptable values that is less strict than those declared by shopify/erb_lint? Is it intentional that they share overlapping responsibilities?

Is there an opportunity to replace one with the other?

If not, should ERBLint::Linters::AllowedScriptType be updated to include "module" as well?

[yykamei]

Is it intentional that BetterHtml includes a set of acceptable values that is less strict than those declared by shopify/erb_lint? Is it intentional that they share overlapping responsibilities?

I think it's a good point, but I'm not sure the relationship between erb-lint and better-html.

Actually, I'm using erb-lint with ErbSafety enabled. As you said, I configured AllowedScriptType to allow "module", but still, I encountered a similar issue, and I found out the issue is raised from better-html. So far, erb-lint has no options to configure better-html. That's why I opened this PR.

linters:
  AllowedScriptType:
    enabled: true
    allowed_types:
      - 'application/json'
      - 'module'
  DeprecatedClasses:
    enabled: true
  ErbSafety:
    enabled: true

[rafaelfranca]

better-html is a HTML parser that can be also used to transform unsafe HTML to safe HTML. We use it as a security measurement. It isn't linter. It just happen to be used the erb-lint as the parser for HTML and ERB.

The configuration of the linter should be independent from the list of allowed types in better-html. Their defaults can be the same though.

[rafaelfranca]

Can you please rebase the PR so I can start the CI?

[yykamei]

Thank you. I rebased it.

[yykamei]

I also rebased again.

[rafaelfranca]

Merged in de1fe4d