feat(eslint-plugin): [explicit-module-boundary-types] add option shouldTrackReferences

[sosukesuzuki]

Add new options shouldTrackReferences(boolean).

I'm not familiar with ESLint, if there is more simply solution, please comment

Fixes #1622, #1583

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @sosukesuzuki!

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. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives thousands of unique visitors per day.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1778 into master will decrease coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 82.35%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1778      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.48%   94.37%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         162      162              
  Lines        7494     7551      +57     
  Branches     2151     2173      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits         7081     7126      +45     
- Misses        178      182       +4     
- Partials      235      243       +8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
#unittest	94.37% <82.35%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/ban-ts-ignore.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...plugin/src/rules/explicit-module-boundary-types.ts	82.60% <82.35%> (-3.60%)	⬇️

[bradzacher]

overall code LGTM.
A few comments.

Also there were some lint rule changes recently which are firing on your code.
Address it all and it's good to go.

Thanks for your work!

[bradzacher]

Thanks for the contribution!

[bradzacher]

Hmmm before I merge this - I'm just wondering if this should just be on by default?

It seems like this should just be how the rule works. I think having an option to turn it off is fine, but I feel like all users are going to want this check without needing any configuration.

WDYT?

[sosukesuzuki]

@bradzacher I agree with you. I set the default value to false because I wasn't familiar with the policy on options for this project.

[bradzacher]

When adding checks to a rule, the policy on what is a breaking change depends on what a user would expect the default behaviour to be, and if we think that users might not expect the functionality.

I think that users would expect that the rule checks this, so it's not breaking to have it on by default.

Please flip it, and we can then merge this :)