chore(deps): update dependency eslint to ^8.46.0

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Adoption	Passing	Confidence
eslint (source)	^8.45.0 -> ^8.46.0

---

Release Notes

eslint/eslint (eslint)

v8.46.0

Compare Source

Features

• 8a93438 feat: require-unicode-regexp support v flag (#​17402) (SUZUKI Sosuke)
• 1a2f966 feat: no-useless-escape support v flag (#​17420) (Yosuke Ota)
• ee68d1d feat: no-empty-character-class support v flag (#​17419) (Milos Djermanovic)
• 853d32b feat: deprecate no-return-await (#​17417) (Carlos Lopez)
• d4f02e4 feat: no-control-regex support v flag (#​17405) (Yosuke Ota)
• 2a35f3e feat: prefer-named-capture-group support v flag (#​17409) (Yosuke Ota)
• 8ca8b50 feat: Better error message for flat config plugins (#​17399) (Nicholas C. Zakas)
• 509f753 feat: no-misleading-character-class support v flag (#​17406) (Yosuke Ota)
• 3caf514 feat: no-regex-spaces support v flag (#​17407) (Yosuke Ota)
• b7fad2b feat: prefer-regex-literals support v flag (#​17410) (Yosuke Ota)
• a6a3ad4 feat: no-useless-backreference support v flag (#​17408) (Yosuke Ota)
• 94954a7 feat: no-invalid-regexp support v flag (#​17404) (Yosuke Ota)
• 1af6eac feat: adds option for allowing empty object patterns as parameter (#​17365) (Tanuj Kanti)
• cf03104 feat: Improve config error messages (#​17385) (Nicholas C. Zakas)

Bug Fixes

• 9803c7c fix: FlatESLint#getRulesMetaForResults shouldn't throw on unknown rules (#​17393) (Milos Djermanovic)
• 42faa17 fix: Update no-loop-func to not overlap with no-undef (#​17358) (Matt Wilkinson)

Documentation

• 4d474e3 docs: update with TypeScript info (#​17423) (James)
• 091f44e docs: File extension named processor deprecation (#​17362) (Matt Wilkinson)
• 9254a6c docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
• 6d6dc51 docs: fix overlapping of open in playground button (#​17403) (Tanuj Kanti)
• 7fc3a2c docs: Add private class features info to no-underscore-dangle (#​17386) (Matt Wilkinson)
• da73e58 docs: Migrating eslint-env configuration comments (#​17390) (Francesco Trotta)
• 80dffed docs: fix Ignoring Files section in config migration guide (#​17392) (Milos Djermanovic)
• 8a9abb7 docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
• 7e9be4b docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)
• 0b0bbe0 docs: Update README (GitHub Actions Bot)

Chores

• d1eb7e4 chore: Update ecosystem dependencies (#​17427) (Nicholas C. Zakas)
• fab9e97 chore: package.json update for eslint-config-eslint release (ESLint Jenkins)
• 6246711 chore: package.json update for @​eslint/js release (ESLint Jenkins)
• 0aa0bc3 chore: Add PRs to triage project (#​17421) (Nicholas C. Zakas)

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "every weekend" in timezone Asia/Shanghai, Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate. View repository job log here.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 2 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +1 -1
.lock : +0 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[socket-security]

Removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎

🚮 Removed packages: eslint@8.45.0