feat: Allow clients to access messages from eslint

[gwhitney]

Adds another export analyze from this package, which behaves
exactly like format except that it returns a simple object
with properties output giving the formatted text and messages
giving the eslint messages produced in processing the input text.
Clients can call analyze instead of format if they wish, for
example, to capture any errors that eslint may have encountered.

Resolves #704.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 1e1901b

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

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
prettier-eslint	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

[gwhitney]

I expect that given that this PR adds a new export, it should have a changeset. So I clicked on the link about how to add a changeset, and I tried npx changeset in the top-level directory of my clone, but it reports could not determine executable to run. I tried sudo npm install -g changeset, but still neither npx changeset nor changeset worked. So I am currently unable to add a changeset, but would be happy to do so if further guidance could be provided.

[idahogurl]

@gwhitney To create a changeset, the command should be npx -p @changesets/cli changeset

[gwhitney]

Thanks! Now it reports 🦋 error There is no .changeset folder. so sadly I am still stuck.

[idahogurl]

@gwhitney If you want you can add me to as a contributor to your forked repo and I'll make a PR to put the changeset in

[gwhitney]

I'm confused? I've already allowed edits by maintainers...

[idahogurl]

@gwhitney https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/managing-repository-settings/managing-teams-and-people-with-access-to-your-repository#changing-permissions-for-a-team-or-person

[gwhitney]

I am still confused, why do you need access to the entire fork as opposed to this branch on the fork, which you presumably already have? That was my question, sorry I wasn't clear...

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d4d55fd) 100.00% compared to head (1e1901b) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #827   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            2         2           
  Lines          291       301   +10     
  Branches        82        83    +1     
=========================================
+ Hits           291       301   +10     

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

[gwhitney]

Thanks so much for doing that for me! I really appreciate it.

[github-actions]

Stale pull request

[gwhitney]

I see the stale marking; is there anything I am supposed to be doing to advance this? Thanks for letting me know.

[gwhitney]

Why was this closed? Was it deemed not desirable for the project? Or would some different approach to issue #704 be preferred? Please let me know what I can do to work toward a solution for that issue. Thanks!

[JounQin]

Well, the stale bot is stupid in this case...

[JounQin]

@gwhitney Do you have anytime to fix the conflicts?

[gwhitney]

@gwhitney Do you have anytime to fix the conflicts?

Hope to later today, not 100% certain. Will keep you posted.

[gwhitney]

OK, did my best to rebase. The new test runs OK on my machine. Let me know what else I can do to help. Thanks!

[JounQin]

I don't see anything strange, so merging.

[JounQin]

Released as v16.2.0.

Thanks for your contribution! @gwhitney