feat: add missing-directive-value rule

[oanaOM]

According to Astro docs, client:only directive is required to have a value which represent the correct framework so I think it would be useful to have a rule about this to remind ourselves about this.

Astro docs reference: https://docs.astro.build/en/reference/directives-reference/#clientonly

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f6f48cb

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
eslint-plugin-astro	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[ota-meshi]

I noticed that I haven't written any instructions on how to contribute to this repository.
I added CONTRIBUTING.md earlier, so please check it out.

https://github.com/ota-meshi/eslint-plugin-astro/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md

[oanaOM]

thanks for sharing that @ota-meshi! Sorry for my delayed reply, I think this PR is ready for your review, please.

[ota-meshi]

Thank you for this PR!

I think the rule name need to be a little more clear.
This rule targets the client:only directive, so a name like missing-client-only-directive-value would be a good. What do you think?

[oanaOM]

Thanks for your review @ota-meshi ! I've pushed the changes mentioned after your review

Thank you for this PR!

I think the rule name need to be a little more clear. This rule targets the client:only directive, so a name like missing-client-only-directive-value would be a good. What do you think?

That was my initial thought as well but then was thinking it to name it more generic in case in the future Astro team introduces a new directive that needs to satisfy the same condition.

[ota-meshi]

That was my initial thought as well but then was thinking it to name it more generic in case in the future Astro team introduces a new directive that needs to satisfy the same condition.

Hmm. I cannot agree with your opinion.
If this rule is a rule that verifies that the client:* directive is correct, I think a rule might report a value that has no effect, like <MyComponent client:idle="off" />. It's not that the value is missing. That is, the rule name missing-client-directive-value is already not generic.

Also, I like rule implementation to be as simple as possible, so I think it's better to create new rules for rules that report something different.

[oanaOM]

That was my initial thought as well but then was thinking it to name it more generic in case in the future Astro team introduces a new directive that needs to satisfy the same condition.

Hmm. I cannot agree with your opinion. If this rule is a rule that verifies that the client:* directive is correct, I think a rule might report a value that has no effect, like <MyComponent client:idle="off" />. It's not that the value is missing. That is, the rule name missing-client-directive-value is already not generic.

Also, I like rule implementation to be as simple as possible, so I think it's better to create new rules for rules that report something different.

fair points. I don't mind changing it so I'll go ahead and change it to missing-client-only-directive-value

[ota-meshi]

LGTM! Thank you for your contribution!

[oanaOM]

great! It was my pleasure :D