feat: config schema for missing properties

[kriswest]

resolves #1237
resolves #1213

• Removes the api.github config element as it is defunct
• Adds config schema for commitConfig, attestationConfig and domains
• Regenerates the config docs and types from the schema
• Resolves a couple of type errors revealed by the updated types in scanDiff and checkCommitMessages
• Removes the UserSettings type as this is no longer used (generated config type GitProxyConfig replaced it)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for endearing-brigadeiros-63f9d0 canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	cdcf900
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/endearing-brigadeiros-63f9d0/deploys/68ee7c2945c71b0008878482

[kriswest]

At least two tests will not pass on this PR until its merged as they use config from main that contains invalid properties (mostly api.github, butattestationConfig with questions that have unsupported properties). We could relax the schema to allow these, but I don't think we should...

Edit: cofnirmed - although a gitrleaks test is also failing, I think thats unrelated to this PR.

[kriswest]

I've manually run the Cypress tests, CLI tests and check-types, all of which pass (check-types still shows issues in the UI but they are unrelated to this PR).

[kriswest]

@jescalada I'm not sure I see a way forward other than ignoring the check and merging. The reliance on the main branch for the configLoader tests mean they will always fail if we change the schema/default config such that the schema won't validate the old version...

[kriswest]

@jescalada actually there is an answer. I've raised #1244 which corrects the config used in checks and should allow the two failing config tests on #1243 to pass if this is merged first. Also fixes a typo that was being checked in a test for gitleaks.

[jescalada]

It seems some tests that load the proxy.config.json with the old values are failing. These will likely work after merging, as you mentioned 👍🏼

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.84%. Comparing base (847983d) to head (cdcf900).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/proxy/processors/push-action/scanDiff.ts	0.00%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
.../proxy/processors/push-action/checkAuthorEmails.ts	0.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...roxy/processors/push-action/checkCommitMessages.ts	0.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1243      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.07%   83.84%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        2945     2946       +1     
  Branches      375      380       +5     
==========================================
- Hits         2476     2470       -6     
  Misses        409      409              
- Partials       60       67       +7     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[kriswest]

It seems some tests that load the proxy.config.json with the old values are failing. These will likely work after merging, as you mentioned 👍🏼

Those tests are indeed now passing.

Re: coverage, we've got a handful of new uncovered partials (nullish coealscing to handle missing config entries). Thats never been a problem as the default config that we merge with has values set:

git-proxy/proxy.config.json

Lines 70 to 106 in 84d2563

	"api": {},
	"commitConfig": {
	"author": {
	"email": {
	"local": {
	"block": ""
	},
	"domain": {
	"allow": ".*"
	}
	}
	},
	"message": {
	"block": {
	"literals": [],
	"patterns": []
	}
	},
	"diff": {
	"block": {
	"literals": [],
	"patterns": [],
	"providers": {}
	}
	}
	},
	"attestationConfig": {
	"questions": [
	{
	"label": "I am happy for this to be pushed to the upstream repository",
	"tooltip": {
	"text": "Are you happy for this contribution to be pushed upstream?",
	"links": []
	}
	}
	]
	},