feat(cli/lint): add the --rule option

[Conaclos]

Summary

Fix #58

This PR adds a new option --rule on the biome lint command.
The option allows executing a given rule on a set of files.
The configuration is taken into account.
Only the severity is overridden to its default, i.e. error for recommended rules and warn for other rules.
This ensures that the rule is not off.
The rule is executed even if recommended is disabled.
However, the rule is not executed if the linter is disabled in the configuration.

To implement this feature, I introduced a new type RuleCode that references a rule with static string slices.
This allows passing the rule group/name without cloning it.
I modified Rules::matches_diagnostic_code to return static string slices. It acts as a static string interner.
I also added methods to set the severity level of a given rule.

The argument of the rule option is passed as parameters in the different calls.

Test Plan

I added tests.

[Conaclos]

Here I set rule to None because I do not have access to this data. I am not sure about the consequences. Maybe it only affects the LSP. Since the CLI is the only one using the rule option, it's probably OK.

[github-actions]

Parser conformance results on

js/262

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	49701	49701	0
Passed	48721	48721	0
Failed	980	980	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	98.03%	98.03%	0.00%

jsx/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	40	40	0
Passed	37	37	0
Failed	3	3	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	92.50%	92.50%	0.00%

symbols/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	6322	6322	0
Passed	2036	2036	0
Failed	4286	4286	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	32.20%	32.20%	0.00%

ts/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	662	662	0
Passed	593	593	0
Failed	69	69	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	89.58%	89.58%	0.00%

ts/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	17646	17646	0
Passed	13439	13439	0
Failed	4205	4205	0
Panics	2	2	0
Coverage	76.16%	76.16%	0.00%

[ematipico]

You use the following phrase inside the doc comments, but what does that mean? I believe it requires more explanation. The phrase is too opaque.

The configuration is taken into account.

[ematipico]

A believe we can make this option more powerful by running rules that belong to a single group too.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #2860 will improve performances by 6.09%

_{Comparing conaclos/cli-rule-option (2b9c194) with main (78d70d2)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	main	conaclos/cli-rule-option	Change
⚡	pure.css[uncached]	25.8 ms	24.4 ms	+6.09%

[ematipico]

@Conaclos you forgot to address

taking the configurations file into account

It's still somewhere inside the doc comments and in the description of the PR. Could you please make sure to follow up? I still find that phrase opaque. I truly don't understand what it means 😅

[Conaclos]

It's still somewhere inside the doc comments and in the description of the PR. Could you please make sure to follow up? I still find that phrase opaque. I truly don't understand what it means 😅

I made the following changes:

Run only the given rule taking the configurations into account

Then I changed to:

Run only the given rule taking the rule options in the configuration file into account

And so:

Run only the given rule or rule group taking the configuration file into account

I am unsure how to address your concern

[ematipico]

What I don't understand is what "taking the configuration file into account" mean. It's very generic. I know you explained that in some comments, it would great to use that explanation here:

The severity of groups and rules configured in the configuration file won't change.