Add support for checksum lists

[theonlypwner]

EDIT:

I'm checking off each extension as I find the time to. I can't review everything at once, so I'm ticking off extensions/filenames as they're verified. Sorry for the mess…
— @Alhadis

EDIT Ⅱ:

Never mind, this is @lildude's problem now. 😁
— ibid

Description

Fixes #5130.

Checklist

• I am adding a new language.
  • The language is in-use by hundreds of users on GitHub.
    • Extensions:
      • .sha256: ~789,426 results
      • .crc 12,509
      • .crc32 5,262
      • .digest 3,071
      • .md2 41,384 (3D model files need to be excluded)
      • .md4 120
      • .md5 4,906,611
      • .rmd160 49
      • .sha1 2,782,935
      • .sha2 423
      • .sha224 224
      • .sha256 789,426
      • .sha3 28
      • .sha384 3,685
      • .sha512 154,632
    • Filenames:
      • SHA1SUMS 3,921
      • SHA256SUMS 2,148
      • …others (according to the template, only extensions need to be declared)
  • I have included real-world samples for all extensions added in this PR:
    • Source: Author (@theonlypwner)
    • License:

      If it isn't already in the public domain, I agree to license my samples under the MIT License, so it may be included in this repo without any issue.

  • I have included or enabled a syntax highlighting grammar.
  • I have added or updated the heuristics.

[Alhadis]

Have yet to verify the usage of each addition, but here're some preliminary thoughts.

[Alhadis]

@lildude, I'm passing this ball to your court, as you're currently responsible for sussing out popularity metrics. Hopefully it's not too much of a pain. 😁

[lildude]

Hopefully it's not too much of a pain. 😁

With this many filenames and extensions, it's a right PITA!! 😞

[lildude]

Quite a few file names that I couldn't find a single example of or aren't popular enough when I did.

[theonlypwner]

I agree with the suggestions and have made them.

I noticed a lot of results for extension .digest, so please check it.

Also, I noticed some files in the format name whitespace hash instead of hash whitespace name, which I hope either won't cause issues for the syntax highlighter or can be fixed later.

[lildude]

I noticed a lot of results for extension .digest, so please check it.

Yes, there are quite a few, however the format isn't consistent from a quick look at various results. I'm not sure if the grammar can support this at this stage and I'd really like to build the next release today.

We can always add it later once @Alhadis confirms the grammar can support these various formats.

Accordingly, I've removed the .digest and the sample for now.

[theonlypwner]

We can always add it later

Yes, I agree. It's better to merge this first and open a new issue/PR for later changes.

[Alhadis]

I'm not sure if the grammar can support [.digest files] at this stage and I'd really like to build the next release today.

Well, I can add support for patterns like this…

digest1:dwLYXWqDkzaJhlo1P6sQqpxgU5cBRRYM9Sna/buqhHIoAX6/np9fYp9Zbgb3Rc7I

… however, I'm unfamiliar with whatever program generates this kind of output, and I'd ideally like some authoritative reference on what formats are accepted in such lines (the example looks to be using base64, but I'd rather not go by guesswork if I can help it).

Also, I noticed some files in the format name whitespace hash instead of hash whitespace name, which I hope either won't cause issues for the syntax highlighter or can be fixed later.

There's no foolproof way to tell name hash from a filename that contains spaces, followed by a word that happens to contain n alphanumeric characters. Conversely, a line that begins with precisely n characters is a little less ambiguous. Consider files that begin with arbitrary text (e.g., comments), or even files like this that aren't technically a checksum list, but are still highlighted non-intrusively.