Chore: Add a script for testing with more control

[fa93hws]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[x] Documentation update
[ ] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[x] Other, please explain: Add a script to package.json

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)
Issue link: #12442
Not sure whether I am the only one, I tends to not read the documentation page by page before the development and hence I neglect the fact that there is an option to have better control on the unit testing.
Also, the documentation in https://eslint.org/docs/developer-guide/unit-tests#running-individual-tests isn't complete as the developer can utilize all options from the mocha cli such as --watch.
I think it might better to have it in the package.json as a script so that it's easier for someone else in the future to find this option easier.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
N/A

[platinumazure]

Looks good to me, but I'd like another set of eyes on this. Thanks for contributing!

I did leave one question, but it's not a blocker.

[platinumazure]

Would it work to simply say "mocha" here?

[fa93hws]

It takes me quite a while to think about the naming and I can't think of a good one.🤦‍♂️
Maybe mocha works better.

[platinumazure]

Ack, I apologize, I wasn't clear.

I meant to say that you shouldn't need to prefix the mocha command:

"test:cli": "mocha"

This is because npm scripts should have the ./node_modules/.bin added to the path environment variable.

I like the script name test:cli. It's generic, and we wouldn't need to change it if we moved away from mocha.

[platinumazure]

I apologize, I miscommunicated in my last review.

[platinumazure]

My apologies, I meant to say you could get rid of the path prefix due to how npm run works.

"test:cli": "mocha"

[fa93hws]

Oh sorry, I see

[platinumazure]

No need to apologize- this was my fault. 😄 Thanks for your patience!

[platinumazure]

Looks good to me, thanks!

[kaicataldo]

LGTM, though I think we can mark this as a chore since it's only for internal use.

[g-plane]

Should we add --reporter=progress?

[fa93hws]

Should we add --reporter=progress?

I am slightly toward to "No"

If the developers are split into two groups, familiar with the Mocha or not.
For those who familiar with the Mocha, there isn't much difference between having it or not.
For those who aren't familiar with it, chances that they are using it according to https://eslint.org/docs/developer-guide/unit-tests#running-individual-tests. The default reporter would be more suitable for few files.

But I believe you have much more context than I do so either way is fine for me.

[platinumazure]

I'll go ahead and merge this as-is, without --reporter=progress. If we need to change this later, we can do so in a separate PR.

Thanks @fa93hws for contributing!