fix(type-utils): file variant of TypeOrValueSpecifier uses canonical filenames instead of lowercasing

[marekdedic]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Bug?: type-utils > TypeOrValueSpecifier's file detection is case insensitive #6697
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @marekdedic!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

---

🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint.

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint failed.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	788c620
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/648c81b77271d2000826ca42

[marekdedic]

Hi,
since this was previously an issue on their machine, I am tagging @JoshuaKGoldberg in particular (I cannot assign you as a reviewer) to verify this works for them, thanks!

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit 788c620. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

---

✅ Successfully ran 31 targets

• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=lint --parallel
• Node 20 - nx test typescript-estree
• Node 20 - nx test scope-manager
• Node 20 - nx test parser
• Node 20 - nx test type-utils
• Node 20 - nx test visitor-keys
• Node 20 - nx run types:build
• Node 20 - nx test utils
• Node 20 - nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types
• Node 20 - nx test repo-tools
• nx run-many --target=typecheck --parallel
• nx run integration-tests:test
• Node 16 - nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx run types:build
• Node 16 - nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• Node 16 - nx test utils --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• Node 20 - nx test ast-spec
• Node 16 - nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test parser --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test repo-tools --coverage=false
• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint --coverage=false
• nx run types:build
• Node 16 - nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude=website --exclude=website-eslint

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6781 (e5a7c9a) into v6 (da95d62) will decrease coverage by 0.25%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head e5a7c9a differs from pull request most recent head 788c620. Consider uploading reports for the commit 788c620 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               v6    #6781      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.75%   87.50%   -0.25%     
==========================================
  Files         372      376       +4     
  Lines       12813    12938     +125     
  Branches     3800     3821      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits        11244    11322      +78     
- Misses       1193     1231      +38     
- Partials      376      385       +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	87.50% <100.00%> (-0.25%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/type-utils/src/TypeOrValueSpecifier.ts	89.65% <100.00%> (-0.67%)	⬇️

... and 36 files with indirect coverage changes

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Yeah I think this is very reasonable 👍. Just, it needs some test coverage please?

[marekdedic]

Well, I added a test for the normalization, however, I can't really test for capitalization - the test would then fail on some platforms, right? Does it pass on your machine?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

@bradzacher just confirming on architecture things - is there a better dependency setup we can use here?

[bradzacher]

No this is probably the best way to do it and ensures we keep things in sync with the parser's logic.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Yeah I see what you mean - testing this is hard. But what's here so far looks good to me, thanks!

Since this exports a previously internal helper I'll defer to its author for a second review.