Create rule schema to support "allowComments"

[azeemba]

eslint v9 made schema mandatory for options supported by rules:
https://eslint.org/docs/latest/extend/custom-rules#options-schemas

Previously we didn't use the meta object on the rules so now we create the meta object and populate the schema property.

Thanks to @BePo65 for providing context, docs and the schema itself.

[azeemba]

@Standard8 and @BePo65 let me know if you have any thoughts on this PR.

I plan to land it during the week and push a new major release next weekend.

[BePo65]

The pr looks good. Only test coverage for lines 58-62 and 150-154 is missing.

So I am trying to add 1 or more tests for the allowComments setting.
The problem is that here we do not test rules, but a configuration setting. I'm trying to find out, how to add configuration settings for the tested rule.

Perhaps you could give me a hint, where in the unit.test.js file config settings can be 'sent' to the plugin; otherwise it will take me a little bit longer (I don't call me lazy, but just efficient 😄 ). Any help appreciated.

[Standard8]

Perhaps you could give me a hint, where in the unit.test.js file config settings can be 'sent' to the plugin; otherwise it will take me a little bit longer (I don't call me lazy, but just efficient 😄 ). Any help appreciated.

I don't think there is an easy way. The unit tests appear to be testing only the processor, not from the rule level (i.e. they're not using RuleTester).

However, I would note that the integration tests are covering comments, it just doesn't show up on the code coverage.

[BePo65]

So perhaps it would be the best solution to add rules test (with coverage) in a new pr.

That would give me a little bit more time for this topic (at the moment I'm quite busy in my main project). But nevertheless I would like to get a deeper understanding of custom eslint rules anyway and testing the rule algorithm (with coverage) would be a good reason to do that.

@azeemba is this an acceptable way you are willing to live with?

[BePo65]

Prepared a pr (extending this pr) that adds tests for the rules to the unit tests. These tests bring coverage back to 100%.

Should we add this modification to this pr here or create a new pr (or simply drop the idea 😄 )?

[azeemba]

@BePo65 thanks for looking into it! A separate PR would be awesome.

I will go ahead and merge this PR for now and prep a release.