Update build scripts to use improved settings

[jablko]

Initial checklist

• I read the support docs
• I read the contributing guide
• I agree to follow the code of conduct
• I searched issues and couldn’t find anything (or linked relevant results below)
• If applicable, I’ve added docs and tests

Description of changes

I'm in favor of minimizing the #279 (review) diffs, I'm also in favor of disambiguating setting and settings. This PR extracts cosmetic changes from #279 (comment) --- I propose merging this one and then rebasing #279, to make it smaller?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #286 (99f9ac1) into main (411f616) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #286    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files           73        73            
  Lines         7473      8447   +974     
==========================================
+ Hits          7473      8447   +974     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/remark-lint-strong-marker/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-cell-padding/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-pipe-alignment/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/remark-lint-table-pipes/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...s/remark-lint-unordered-list-marker-style/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/unified-lint-rule/lib/index.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
script/util/rule.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ckages/remark-lint-blockquote-indentation/index.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ages/remark-lint-checkbox-character-style/index.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...kages/remark-lint-checkbox-content-indent/index.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 66 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0f6bb40...99f9ac1. Read the comment docs.

[jablko]

I noticed that we currently use config in all the readmes:

remark-lint/script/build-rules.js

Line 540 in 014fca7

value: 'unified().use(' + camelcased + '[, config])'

What do you think about replacing setting with that?

[wooorm]

yeah sure!

[jablko]

Thanks!

[jablko]

I also wrapped {config} in an object. It's the tests key, which changes the order of some examples, because the tests JS object isn't order preserving: #279 (comment)

Before some examples were in numeric order, now they're in the order defined in the docblocks. Before the key was '4', now it's '{"config":4}'.

This is also a cosmetic change --- it extracts the change in example order from #279 (review). That PR changes the tests key from {config} -> {settings, config}.

[wooorm]

Am I correct in seeing this PR as doing two things only (a. settings -> config, b. config -> {config}) and nothing else?
Or do I need to properly read everything to see if there’s something weird somewhere? 😅

[wooorm]

I fixed the errors on main btw!

[jablko]

That's correct: setting -> config and config -> {config}, nothing else.

I fixed the errors on main btw!

Awesome thanks! 🙌 I'll remove the unist-util-position types commit now.

[wooorm]

okay then!

[wooorm]

Thanks! :)