Support bare import order

[mantou132]

Bare imports have side effects, so biome ignores bare imports.

But in some special places, the order of bare imports does not matter, so I want to sort them, such as putting them at the end:

import { commonAnimationOptions, fadeIn, fadeOut, slideInUp } from '../lib/animations';
import { setBodyInert } from '../lib/element';
import { hotkeys } from '../lib/hotkeys';
import { locale } from '../lib/locale';
import { theme } from '../lib/theme';
import { DyPromise, ignoredPromiseReasonSet } from '../lib/utils';

import './button';
import './divider';
import './scroll-box';

The methods I thought of:

"organizeImports": {
  "level": "on",
  "options": {
    "groups": [
      [":BUN:", ":NODE:"],
      ":BLANK_LINE:",
      ":PACKAGE:",
      ":PACKAGE_WITH_PROTOCOL:",
      ":BLANK_LINE:",
      ":ALIAS:",
      ":PATH:",
      ":URL:",
      { kind:  "bare", source: "**" },
    ]
  }
}

[Conaclos]

Thanks for the mention. It is not the first time someone asks for this feature. I will investigate if it is not too hard to add and how this should be expressed.

[Conaclos]

Here is my proposal: As you suggested, we could add a new kind selector on import matchers.
kind could be set to bare, namespace, default, or named (as well as defaultNamed, defaultNamespace?).
However, the current implementation of groups matches groups in-order.
Thus, to express your example, you have to exclude bare imports from all preceding import matchers.
We could introduce negated kinds like !bare.

So, your example could be expressed as follows:

{
 "organizeImports": {
  "level": "on",
  "options": {
    "sortBareImports": true, // required to sort bare imports with other imports
    "groups": [
      { "kind":  "!bare", "source": [":BUN:", ":NODE:"] },
      ":BLANK_LINE:",
      { "kind":  "!bare", "source": ":PACKAGE:" },
      { "kind":  "!bare", "source": ":PACKAGE_WITH_PROTOCOL:" },
      ":BLANK_LINE:",
      { "kind":  "!bare", "source": ":ALIAS:" },
      { "kind":  "!bare", "source": ":PATH:" },
      ":URL:",
      { "kind":  "bare" }
    ]
  }
 }
}

This is more verbose, however this respects the in-order nature of our matching system.
Any opinion?

[Conaclos]

The in-order nature of our matching system makes things verbose. It is not the first time its verbosity is noted. Also, it seems to confuse people. I chose this matching system because it is "simple", easily-understandable (once we know that everything is matched in-order), and efficient in terms of implementation. I am open to discuss an alternative matching system.

EDIT: I wrote some ideas I had about matching priority in a RFC.