Move getRuleDescriptionUrl to plugins

[daniilsapa]

Closes #131

I was not sure about one thing: should getRuleDescriptionUrl be an optional plugin method or not? I decided to make it required because otherwise, a diagnostic is not that useful. What do you think?

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: ff9ffe9

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

This PR includes changesets to release 3 packages

Name	Type
@feature-sliced/steiger-plugin	Minor
steiger	Minor
@steiger/types	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

[illright]

About optionality — I think I would prefer it to be optional to lower the entry barrier for writing rules. It feels strange to link to documentation that doesn't yet exist, so we want to let people add the docs when it's convenient. If they don't have docs, they can always make the error message more descriptive

[daniilsapa]

Actually, optionality makes sense in this case. I think I'll change it a bit so that function can provide either a link or a short description for a diagnostic. Is that something you thought too?

[illright]

I'll change it a bit so that function can provide either a link or a short description for a diagnostic. Is that something you thought too?

No, I meant that the explanation can be given in the error message itself. How would you like to display this short description that a function might return?

[daniilsapa]

I was thinking about a short description that could be returned by the getRuleDescription function. Then we could display that instead of a link. But I looked at our diagnostics again and saw that a short description instead of a link is a bit of nonsense. So never mind...

[daniilsapa]

I made getRuleDescriptionUrl optional

[illright]

All good!