Bump jscodeshift to 0.15.2

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Fixes #12567

Package	Change	Age	Adoption	Passing	Confidence
jscodeshift	0.13.1 -> 0.15.2
@types/jscodeshift (source)	^0.11.5 -> ^0.11.11

---

Release Notes

facebook/jscodeshift (jscodeshift)

v0.15.2

Compare Source

Fixed

• Process all supported extensions by default (#​584, @​trivikr)

v0.15.1

Compare Source

Changed

• Upgraded to recast 0.23.3 (#​564, @​ashsearle)
• Enable @babel/plugin-proposal-private-methods in worker (#​568, @​sibelius)
• Upgraded Babel packages (#​570, @​dartess)

Fixed

• Respect extensions cli option when filtering individual files (#​562, @​robcmills)
• Fixed unit test after #​562 broke them (#​575, @​ElonVolo)

v0.15.0

Compare Source

Changed

• Upgraded to recast 0.23.1 (#​544, @​ryanrhee)
• Make @​babel/preset-env optional (#​480, @​SimenB)

Fixed

• Force LF line ending in bin/jscodeshift.sh (#​555, @​jakeboone02)
• Use transform's exported parser in testUitls (#​528, @​CrispyBacon12)
• Ensure jscodeshift doesn't load Babel config file (#​460, @​raon0211)

v0.14.0

Compare Source

Added

• Added a defineSnapshotTestFromFixture test util (#​471, @​shriuken)
• Added renameTo filters for Babel 6+ node types (#​412 and #​504, @​elonvolo and @​henryqdineen)
• Added childNodesOfType to JSX traversal methods (#​415, @​j13huang)

Changed

• Bumped dependency versions
• Allow arguments in --help to be listed in an order other than alphabetically, so they can instead be grouped thematically (#​507, @​elonvolo)
• Allow the j shortcut in test utils (#​515, @​no23reason)

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "on sunday before 6:00am" in timezone UTC, Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about these updates again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate. View repository job log here.

[mui-bot]

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-12305--material-ui-x.netlify.app/

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against bc0c5b0

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[renovate]

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[MBilalShafi]

Following the same route as core, until the underlying issue with the recast is still there, let's not prevent our users from using latest typescript expressions like satisfies, since the parenthesis could easily be fixed with code formatters like prettier.

[LukasTy]

Thank you for taking care of this! 🙏
Core is releasing it under a new major, but in our case, this would end up in a minor/patch release. 🙈
WDYT about improving the documentation and also thinking about an informative changelog highlight to along with it.
Adding an additional runtime warning just like we already have might also be a good idea:

mui-x/packages/x-codemod/src/codemod.ts

Lines 68 to 75 in b38bef8

	IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT CODEMOD USAGE
	====================================
	Not all use cases are covered by codemods. In some scenarios, like props spreading, cross-file dependencies and etc., the changes are not properly identified and therefore must be handled manually.
	For example, if a codemod tries to rename a prop, but this prop is hidden with the spread operator, it won't be transformed as expected.
	<DatePicker {...pickerProps} />
	After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any console errors.

WDYT @MBilalShafi? 🤔

[MBilalShafi]

Core is releasing it under a new major, but in our case, this would end up in a minor/patch release. 🙈

Nice point. Do you mean it's kind-of a breaking change? It might be considered a non-breaking change, because:

1. Prettier would still come into play after running these codemods since every project has its own formatting rules, it is less likely that the codemod output (even today's) would 100% comply with the formatting rules of a certain project.

2. Codemods are likely to be run once per project per major release (at the time of migration), so the existing users that already ran them, might not rerun them for the same major, which would mean that combining running codemods with code formatting should solve the issues for new users running them.

3. The existing codemod warning somehow implies the users manually double checking after running the codemods, which would reduce the chances of un-pretty code being committed.

   After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any console errors.

   So it's likely people are already doing this before committing the code.

Makes sense?

Adding an additional runtime warning just like we already have might also be a good idea

How about improving the existing one to accommodate this one too?

- After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any console errors.
+ After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any errors. 

Or

- After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any console errors.
+ After running the codemods, make sure to test your application and that you don't have any formatting or console errors. 

What do you think?

[LukasTy]

What do you think?

I'm sorry for the late reply @MBilalShafi.
Your comments/points make complete sense.
I do agree with all of them, I just wanted to be extra careful. 🙈 😆
But moving forward with this is more important than a few potential questions from some users. 👍

In regards to your suggestion, the second proposal for the message looks better to me. 👍