feat: flag to suppress existing diagnostics

[anthonyshew]

Summary

Working on #4007 to create a flag for writing ignores. This is useful when migrating a large codebase, and you want to enable a rule that has hundreds (thousands?!) of existing violations for that rule. With this feature, you can have Biome ignore those existing violations, and burn them down later.

Test Plan

Some new tests have been written in crates/biome_cli/tests/cases/suppressions.rs. Additionally, I've ran this against a large codebase to validate that things work as I'd expect.

[anthonyshew]

I would appreciate a look from a maintainer here to see if I'm on the right track architecturally. I'm not completely sure that I have the right idea. I was following what looks like the strategy for --fix, which seems like it follows the same workflow (find a diagnostic, make an edit). Plenty more work to do but would love to find out if I'm directionally correct at this point.

[dyc3]

Definitely take a look at ematipico's comment here: #4007 (comment)

[anthonyshew]

TL;DR from Ema's comment: I wasn't even close on my first attempt. 😄 Circling back.

[anthonyshew]

Well, it at least works now. 😄

Maintainer questions:

• Would love to hear from a maintainer that I'm architecturally correct now that I've pivoted my strategy
• Is this the right name for the flag?
• It looks like I can implement the other languages pretty simply from a quick look? Is this desired?

My to-dos:

• The default message is still <explanation>
  • Would be great to make the explanation customizable, but will probably do this in a follow up PR
• Take it for a larger test in a bigger repo than create-turbo
• Write tests (Not really sure what tests to write)

[anthonyshew]

Alright, I think I finally have this ready! Let me know if there are still changes needed (possible I need more tests, wasn't sure what you'd like to see tested).

Learned a lot about how Biome works and will handle follow-ups for customizing the explanation once this one lands. Thanks for tolerating my noob questions, @dyc3, @ematipico, and @Conaclos. 😄

[anthonyshew]

Thanks, @ematipico! Addressed your comments. 👍

[anthonyshew]

@ematipico, just checked back in on this PR and had to resolve some conflicts. Is there anything else you need me to do to get merged? I'd love to get started on the custom descriptions but don't want to be working against myself. 😄

[ematipico]

@anthonyshew

You don't need to do anything now. Since this is a feature, we need to wait a bit. We're still merging bug fixes. Once we're ready, we'll merge it

[anthonyshew]

Ah, okay, no worries. Sorry, should've put that together.

Would it be wise for me to start trying to work on the custom explanations or should I hold back on that?