We have a strange workaround for `visit_function` where we pass in `ScopeFlags`, to support creating the scope inside `Function`, but setting different flags for `MethodDefinition`s.
Previously `visit_function` took `Option<ScopeFlags>` and then did `flags.unwrap_or(ScopeFlags::empty()) | ScopeFlags::Function` to it. Personally, I found this confusing. When I was looking at `MethodDefinition`, I was wondering "It's a function, why doesn't it set Function flag too?"
This changes makes it more explicit and clear what `ScopeFlags` everything has.
I'm going to be AFK today(till about 9 PM UTC). Meanwhile, I Didn't want to be a blocker so here we go.
It would fix the #4200 merge if you guys find it in the correct order otherwise feel free to close it.
```
Usage: oxc_ast_codegen [--dry-run] [--no-fmt] [--schema=ARG]
Available options:
--dry-run Runs all generators but won't write anything down.
--no-fmt Don't run cargo fmt at the end
--schema=ARG Path of output `schema.json`.
-h, --help Prints help information
```
hotfix for #4060
I just added an edge case, We can come back to it later on and make it a
standard in our codegen.
The diff is big because it causes the code to reorder, The edge case
generated code doesn't follow the order in which they are defined in the
source of truth(eg `js.rs`)
~~Attempt to improve the performance of visitors, It is mostly for experiments. I'm not sure how much performance is there to gain back.~~
- [x] inline plural visits (eg: visit_statements)
- [x] inline enums when there are 5 or fewer match cases
- [x] inline structs when there are 5 or less fields
- [x] inline `Visit::alloc`
~~The generated code is only here for the sake of my own comparison (instead of manually keeping a backup of the old generated file). I would clean this up as soon as it is ready, submit some parts of it as the down stack, and stack the actual generated code on top of this. So please don't let the huge diff distract you, It won't have many conflicts since almost all of these are the generated visit code, which is completely contained to its own module(other than some minor renaming refactors).~~
The order of function definitions is a bit different, I've used a depth-first search, We can switch to a breadth-first one to align functions more closely to the original.
We use prettyplease for formatting our generated code, Which has a lot of advantages over rustfmt, But sometimes it conflicts with our cargo fmt config,
Since it isn't configurable I just added a `cargo fmt` step after the generation process to prevent conflicts.
We might be able to not rely on prettyplease at all, But We have to test that one after we have most of our generated code, rustfmt usually bails on nested calls and macros so it might not work as our only solution. In contrast to that prettyplease is used in both bindgen and cargo-expand and is created for this exact reason(formatting generated code).
