chore: replace standard and snazzy with neostandard

[Uzlopak]

Migrate from standard and snazzyy to neostandard by @voxpelli . Also starting to lint typescript files.

To make it easier to review:

• First commit is just setting up eslint with neostandard instead of standard and snazzy, + configure for our project
• Second commit is with automatic fixing via --fix flag
• Third commit is manually fixing linting errors

[mertcanaltin]

LGTM 🚀

[ronag]

Why? If we are going this way I'd rather go with eslint + prettier.

[voxpelli]

Would love to get feedback on neostandard/neostandard#79 to make this unnecessary 🙏

[voxpelli]

If you want, you can update to 0.11.3 now and this override will no longer be needed (though having it will enforce no dangling commas if that's desireable)

[voxpelli]

Was this a particular issue with TS-files? Maybe it's something we should tweak in neostandard itself?

[Uzlopak]

this basically happens if you have something like

export interface CacheStorage {
  match (request: RequestInfo, options?: MultiCacheQueryOptions): Promise<Response | undefined>,
  has (cacheName: string): Promise<boolean>,
  open (cacheName: string): Promise<Cache>,
  delete (cacheName: string): Promise<boolean>,
  keys (): Promise<string[]>
}

declare const CacheStorage: {
  prototype: CacheStorage
  new(): CacheStorage
}

Because the interface CacheStorage exists declaring the const CacheStorage results in a no-redeclare linting error

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mcollina]

Why? If we are going this way I'd rather go with eslint + prettier.

prettier is incompatible with standard so it would be impossible to do backports. neostandard is just an eslint config and backward compatible with standard.

[Uzlopak]

I worked now together with @voxpelli regarding this PR, because the linting was quite slow (~10s). Disabling jsx to avoid running react related linting saved 2 s. Also activated eslint cache makes it run significantly faster.

So the first run is slow but consecutive runs will have the same perf as before.

[Uzlopak]

Well. I think the PR is now mature enough for the merge.

So if @ronag 's is ok with it, then we could merge it :).

[metcoder95]

lgtm

[github-actions]

The backport to v6.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-v6.x v6.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-v6.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-3485-to-v6.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 26004bfccaead3d6ec143c03a09dc036cea2c2ae
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-3485-to-v6.x
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-v6.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is v6.x and the compare/head branch is backport-3485-to-v6.x.