test: use uvu to run rule tests for better reports

[timdeschryver]

Currently, running the rule tests is not friendly because it abruptly stops when a rule test fails.
It also doesn't show why it fails.

In this PR, we're going to resolve this because it can waste some time and it was on my todo list 😅

The trick is to run the tests in an uvu context, with it uvu will:

• gracefully handle exceptions and continue to run other tests
• show the exception message (formatted) so we can clearly see what's wrong

As a fix, we got two options and I would like to hear your opinion @rafaelss95 before I migrate the other rules.

We could either do it like avoid-combining-selectors, and export the tests (we should then also rename them to fixtures to make it clear) and then iterate over them, and create a test for each fixture. This gives us a good overview (name of the fixture, and the formatted exception).

  FAIL  "avoid-combining-selectors.fixture"
    Error endColumn should be 89 (90 strictEqual 89)  (strictEqual)

        ++89    (Expected)
        --90    (Actual)

The other option is to keep the rules test in place but wrap them in an uvu test, like did for avoid-cyclic-effects

rules\avoid-cyclic-effects.test.ts
✘   (0 / 1)

   FAIL  "\tests\rules\avoid-cyclic-effects.test.ts"
    Error endColumn should be 30 (29 strictEqual 30)  (strictEqual)

        ++30    (Expected)
        --29    (Actual)

[rafaelss95]

Cool, this is much better and will definitely save a considerable debugging time. Thank you for that! 🥇

I liked the second option better... but I have a suggestion, to avoid too much nesting we could move the valid and invalid arrays to outside of any callbacks... so we'd have:

const valid = [
  // ...
]
const invalid = [
  // ...
]

test(__filename, () => {
  ruleTester().run(path.parse(__filename).name, rule, { valid, invalid })
}
test.run()

[timdeschryver]

That's a great idea!
I'm afraid that if I convert all rules, that this will conflict with #221 though.
If it's OK I prefer to wait until that one is merged and then I'll update all tests.
If the "refactored" version is helpful for #221, feel free to update the rules that you refactor in #221, and then I will do the rest of the rules in this PR.

[timdeschryver]

Something like this @rafaelss95 ?

[rafaelss95]

Some minor comments, but overall it looks pretty good. 🥳

[rafaelss95]

I'd add this where possible:

Suggested change

	]
	] as const

[timdeschryver]

Where would this be needed?

[timdeschryver]

Still had to do [0][] here to get the types correct, [option] vs option[]

[timdeschryver]

Merging this in so other tests can be changed without affecting this merge.
If there are comments, I'll resolve them in a separate PR.

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.46.3 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀