refactor(migrate/eslint): improve naming-convention migration

[Conaclos]

Summary

This PR improves the migration of the naming-convention rule.
It attempts to migrate to the new conventions option of useNamingConvention.

Unfortunately I encounter stack overflow when I am trying to create regexes.
Thus, I commented all codes that compile a regex.
This makes the migration greatly less useful.

I am open to suggestions to solve this issue.

I also fixed a bug in RestrictedRegex that ruled out ([^x]).

Test Plan

I extended a test.

[github-actions]

Parser conformance results on

js/262

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	49701	49701	0
Passed	48721	48721	0
Failed	980	980	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	98.03%	98.03%	0.00%

jsx/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	40	40	0
Passed	37	37	0
Failed	3	3	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	92.50%	92.50%	0.00%

symbols/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	6322	6322	0
Passed	2036	2036	0
Failed	4286	4286	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	32.20%	32.20%	0.00%

ts/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	662	662	0
Passed	593	593	0
Failed	69	69	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	89.58%	89.58%	0.00%

ts/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	17646	17646	0
Passed	13441	13441	0
Failed	4205	4205	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	76.17%	76.17%	0.00%

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #2968 will improve performances by 6.49%

_{Comparing conaclos/migrate-eslint-conventions (4b206ec) with main (08b2013)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
✅ 91 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	main	conaclos/migrate-eslint-conventions	Change
⚡	jquery.min.js[cached]	28.6 ms	26.8 ms	+6.49%

[ematipico]

Personally, I don't think we should provide a migration path to this rule, because regex coming from eslint are JavaScript regex, and we use a crate that doesn't support JavaScript regex. While this is a best effort work, users should be aware of possible discrepancies.

Personally, it's not worth the trouble, but maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

I wished you had discussed this before, but the work is done now.

If you think it's worth the trouble, please make sure that everything is documented on the website, so we set clear expectations.

[Conaclos]

I wished you had discussed this before, but the work is done now.

It was a bullet point in my task list in #2770
I thought everyone expected a migration path for the new option.

Personally, I don't think we should provide a migration path to this rule, because regex coming from eslint are JavaScript regex, and we use a crate that doesn't support JavaScript regex

Yes, however restricted regex should reject regexes that e don't support.

Maybe you are right. This PR already took me too much time. Especially because of the stack overflow.
The resulting migration seems a bit drafty.

[Conaclos]

I removed the attempt of translating JavaScript regexes into Rust regexes.