feat!: Upgrade to DCM 1.11.0

[witwash]

Summary

Update to DCM 1.11.1

Enabled rules:

• avoid-duplicate-cascades
• avoid-duplicate-switch-case-conditions
• avoid-unnecessary-super
• match-lib-folder-structure
• prefer-both-inlining-annotations
• prefer-correct-handler-name
• prefer-correct-setter-parameter-name
• prefer-explicit-function-type
• prefer-explicit-type-arguments
• prefer-null-aware-spread
• prefer-specific-cases-first
• prefer-typedefs-for-callbacks
• prefer-unique-test-names

New rules that were left disabled:

• avoid-banned-annotations
• avoid-collection-mutating-methods
• avoid-inferrable-type-arguments
• avoid-missing-test-files
• prefer-addition-subtraction-assignments
• prefer-correct-callback-field-name
• prefer-prefixed-global-constants

Testing steps

None

Follow-up issues

None

Check during review

• Verify against Jira issue.
• Is the PR over 300 additions? Consider rejecting it with advice to split it. Is it over 500 additions? It should definitely be rejected.
• Unused code removed.
• Build passing.
• Is it a bug fix? Check that it is covered by a proper test (unit or integration).

[witwash]

@ookami-kb, WDYT about enabling prefer-correct-handler-name and prefer-correct-callback-field-name? I know that is something that we agreed on, but are we ready to enforce it? :D

upd: we'll need to do something with things like this then

Screenshots

[witwash]

And what about avoid-collection-mutating-methods? I think we could enable it 🤔

[witwash]

Well, I think we should enable handler one, but leave the callback-field-name turned off. We have plenty of typedef functions that are reported by this and I don't think that renaming the to "on...." is making any sense.

[ookami-kb]

Well, I think we should enable handler one, but leave the callback-field-name turned off. We have plenty of typedef functions that are reported by this and I don't think that renaming the to "on...." is making any sense.

Makes sense to me. @alboiuvlad29 @chaeMil @Sevastyan your input?

[Sevastyan]

Well, I think we should enable handler one, but leave the callback-field-name turned off. We have plenty of typedef functions that are reported by this and I don't think that renaming the to "on...." is making any sense.

Makes sense to me. @alboiuvlad29 @chaeMil @Sevastyan your input?

I agree. In most cases having on.... for typedefs doesn't make sense. Let's ignore.

[github-actions]

⚠️ PR has more than 300 additions. Consider splitting it into smaller PRs.