Initial implementation of shared eslint config

[bajtos]

Copy the Neostandard eslint config from https://github.com/CheckerNetwork/node

See CheckerNetwork/node#710

[bajtos]

I am not convinced that sharing a two-line configuration is worth the extra ceremony required. (This patch has +4,949 new lines.)

We will also need to remember to periodically publish new versions of this package in order to ship neostandard updates to our repositories.

@juliangruber WDYT?

[bajtos]

package-lock.json is adding 4,808 lines, so the actual meaningful content is "only" 141 lines. To share eslint.config.js containing six lines of code 🤔

[juliangruber]

I don't see it this way, the PR is already there and the extra code is basic orchestration. There are many repositories where the extra code is so much more than the actual code. We might also develop the eslint config in the future, or perform tooling upgrades. We don't want to do this in every repo one by one.

[juliangruber]

I do wonder though if there's a better way to share this config

[juliangruber]

For one, can we share the eslint and prettier config from one repo? This way there's half the orchestration, and less updates. It gets closer to my desire of having just one package for all things listing & formatting.

[bajtos]

I was thinking about this quite a bit.

Neostandard is already the shared linter config that shields us from the details of eslint configuration. The two tweaks we need to make - enable ts and disable style - are kind of specific to each repository. I don't expect them to change unless we significantly rework our formatting & linting setup.

The situation with Prettier is more complex; we need our custom shared config. Prettier provides a neat solution for that:

{
  "prettier": "@CheckerNetwork/prettier-config"
  "devDependencies": {
    "@CheckerNetwork/prettier-config": "^1.0.0",
    "prettier": "^3.5.3"
  }
}

Is it worth innovating here? I am happy to follow the default Prettier approach.

For one, can we share the eslint and prettier config from one repo?

It's not the typical path supported by Prettier.

I see two potential options we can explore:

• In package.json, add `"prettier": "@CheckerNetwork/lint-config/prettier" - if Prettier supports importing from package sub-paths
• Use .prettierrc.js file that re-exports only the Prettier part of the shared configuration

I am not convinced the benefit of having one repo combining eslint and Prettier config is worth deviating from the typical path, though. These two configurations are independent (as long as we keep eslint style-rules disabled).

[juliangruber]

Got it, if that's not supported, let's not innovate. +1 to inlining the neostandard config, and using one repo for the prettier config

[juliangruber]

I want to go the overall simplest path possible here

[juliangruber]

Alleviating your concerns about PR size a bit, this file can be removed as we make this repo also depend on the shared prettier config

[juliangruber]

I don't see it this way, the PR is already there and the extra code is basic orchestration. There are many repositories where the extra code is so much more than the actual code. We might also develop the eslint config in the future, or perform tooling upgrades. We don't want to do this in every repo one by one.

[juliangruber]

This is missing docs for how to use this config, could you add that too?

[juliangruber]

I do wonder though if there's a better way to share this config

[juliangruber]

For one, can we share the eslint and prettier config from one repo? This way there's half the orchestration, and less updates. It gets closer to my desire of having just one package for all things listing & formatting.