Allow top-level return in script parsing. Fixes issue 8509 in master,…

[mwijngaard]

… like PR 8510 fixed it for 'next'

[jsf-clabot]

Thank you for your submission, we really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

[webpack-bot]

For maintainers only:

• This need to be documented (issue in webpack/webpack.js.org will be filed when merged)

[webpack-bot]

Thank you for your pull request! The most important CI builds succeeded, we’ll review the pull request soon.

[webpack-bot]

It looks like this Pull Request doesn't include enough test cases (based on Code Coverage analysis of the PR diff).

A PR need to be covered by tests if you add a new feature (we want to make sure that your feature is working) or if you fix a bug (we want to make sure that we don't run into a regression in future).

@mwijngaard Please check if this is appliable to your PR and if you can add more test cases.

Read the test readme for details how to write test cases.

[alexander-akait]

Please accept CLA

[webpack-bot]

Hi @mwijngaard.

Just a little hint from a friendly bot about the best practice when submitting pull requests:

Don't submit pull request from your own master branch. It's recommended to create a feature branch for the PR.

You don't have to change it for this PR, just make sure to follow this hint the next time you submit a PR.

[alexander-akait]

Can we add new test instead modify current?

[mwijngaard]

Thanks for reviewing. The idea is for this to be exactly the same change as #8510 , which was already merged into 'next'. If you really prefer the test to be split it up I can to that, but it seems to me that that does not benefit understandability when comparing the branches.

[alexander-akait]

👍

[sokra]

Thanks