refactor(review-pr): refactor to use hunks instead of Patch + new file content

[chingor13]

This is a rather large refactor:

• remove Patch, Range types in favor of using Hunk everywhere
• add newContent field to Hunk
  • this will enable us to provide a raw diff as an input for review comments as we only need the new suggested content, not the entire file
• simplifies the main reviewPullRequest logic. we do not need to track invalid files separately (just don't include them in the valid suggestion lines)
  • fetch valid lines from PR
  • fetch valid lines from suggestion
  • partition into valid/invalid suggestions
  • create pull request review with comments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #132 into master will decrease coverage by 1.83%.
The diff coverage is 92.35%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #132      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.17%   86.34%   -1.84%     
==========================================
  Files          25       22       -3     
  Lines        2384     2145     -239     
  Branches      180      150      -30     
==========================================
- Hits         2102     1852     -250     
- Misses        281      292      +11     
  Partials        1        1              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...-hunk-scope-handler/remote-patch-ranges-handler.ts	90.55% <72.22%> (-6.58%)	⬇️
...nt-handler/get-hunk-scope-handler/scope-handler.ts	96.66% <96.66%> (ø)
src/github-handler/comment-handler/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ler/make-review-handler/upload-comments-handler.ts	99.31% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/github-handler/diff-utils.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/types/index.ts	98.24% <100.00%> (-0.14%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ffac451...764e458. Read the comment docs.

[bcoe]

This looks really good to me, great to see us delete 1000 lines.

[bcoe]

If you use octokit's iterator API, you can do something along the lines of:

for await () {}

And avoid pagination concerns if there are more than 100 files.

[bcoe]

it seems like this new logic is biting you, with regards to windows line endings.

In test you might want to add a helper that just standardizes on \n.

[bcoe]

is there any value in pulling this into a fixture? maybe not worth it if we're only going to have one smoke test, but if we're going to add a few payloads like this over time, perhaps we could collect them in a folder.