allow parsing multi-doc yaml files

[chris48s]

Closes #378

Changelog:

• Allow parsing multi-doc yaml
• parseInputFile() may now return Document[]
• Adds documentIndex property to ValidationResult type

[chris48s]

Here's an issue I didn't think of.

I need to output something sensible in getSingleResultLogMessage()

One way I could deal with this would be:

   getSingleResultLogMessage(result, fileLocation, format) {
     if (result.valid === false && format === "text") {
-      return formatErrors(fileLocation, result.errors);
+      return formatErrors(`${fileLocation}[${result.documentIndex}]`, result.errors);
     }
   }
 }

That is simple and easy, but it means I'll switch from saying

./package.json#/version must be string

to

./package.json[0]#/version must be string

in all cases. It would be nice to avoid that given multiple documents in one file is quite an uncommon case.

I could do this:

     let results = [];
     for (const filename of filenames) {
       const fileResults = await validateFile(filename, config, plugins, cache);
+      const multiDoc = fileResults.length > 1;
       results = results.concat(fileResults);
 
       for (const result of results) {
         for (const plugin of plugins) {
+          const fileLocation = multiDoc
+            ? `${filename}[${result.documentIndex}]`
+            : filename;
           const message = plugin.getSingleResultLogMessage(
             result,
-            filename,
+            fileLocation,
             config.format,
           );
           if (message != null) {

but it feels like a bit of a hack and means the content of fileLocation is inconsistent in different places.

I could make some kind of breaking change to getSingleResultLogMessage() that allows me to pass in a variable telling me if the file is a multi-doc.

Finally, I could indicate this in some way in the ValidationResult object. One way would be to add a specific property. The other thing I could do is say that documentIndex is null if the file only contains a single document and only populate it with a number when it contains >1. I think on balance that is probably the nicest approach.

[chris48s]

reckon this is probably good. Needs another read over with fresh eyes though

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.40000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.60%. Comparing base (3a9c9ed) to head (6342e8c).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/cli.js	98.87%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/plugins/parser-yaml.js	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #498      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.40%   96.60%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        1281     1354      +73     
  Branches      268      283      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         1235     1308      +73     
  Misses         45       45              
  Partials        1        1              

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