fix(eslint-config): allow uppercase title for top-level describe

[sabertazimi]

Pull Request

This PR Contains

• bugfix
• new feature
• code refactor
• test update
• typo fix
• metadata update

Motivation / Use-Case

Test-Case

I have verified these changes via:

• Code inspection only, or
• Newly added/modified unit tests, or
• No unit tests but ran on a real repository, or
• Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

Breaking Changes

Additional Info

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.29%. Comparing base (3bf0c5d) to head (43c6248).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1160   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.29%   96.29%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines         189      189           
  Branches       17       17           
=======================================
  Hits          182      182           
  Misses          5        5           
  Partials        2        2           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 4 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +4 -0
Percentile : 1.6%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.js : +4 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.