chore: warn devs when their feature branches may be too large

[samayer12]

Description

Collectively, the Pepr team has reviewed some large PRs lately (e.g., #1262, #1543, #1539, #1396, #1402, #1407). We prefer several smaller PRs to reduce the amount of time spent in code-review and to encourage working in small chunks. This script is an example of a pre-push hook using Husky that warns devs when their branch may be too large.

This PR does not fulfill a need in the backlog, and does not need to be merged. Rather, it's offered as an example to how a Pepr developer might use a similar script for their local development.

Related Issue

None.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (security config, docs update, etc)

Checklist before merging

• Unit, Journey, E2E Tests, docs, adr added or updated as needed
• Contributor Guide Steps followed

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 80.22%. Comparing base (34f4e50) to head (5cdb69e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1571   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.22%   80.22%           
=======================================
  Files          42       42           
  Lines        1896     1896           
  Branches      427      435    +8     
=======================================
  Hits         1521     1521           
- Misses        346      373   +27     
+ Partials       29        2   -27     

see 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[samayer12]

@cmwylie19, what do you think about making the pre-push script an opt-in via an environment variable? We don't want to force everyone to work that way since it's highly-opinionated and hooks can be bypassed with --no-verify anyways.

[cmwylie19]

@cmwylie19, what do you think about making the pre-push script an opt-in via an environment variable? We don't want to force everyone to work that way since it's highly-opinionated and hooks can be bypassed with --no-verify anyways.

Yeah that can work