feat(rome_js_formatter): TS Intersection & Union types #3162

[denbezrukov]

Summary

Fix #3162 for TS Union.

Prettier: https://github.com/prettier/prettier/blob/cd3e530c2e51fb8296c0fb7738a9afdd3a3a4410/src/language-js/print/type-annotation.js#L123-L202

Test Plan

Current:
Average compatibility: 86.00
Compatible lines: 84.91

Main:
Average compatibility: 85.67
Compatible lines: 84.09

New test cases union_type.ts
cargo test --package rome_js_formatter

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-rometools ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	460af0d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-rometools/deploys/631f95533b0e810009de4d3c
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3206--docs-rometools.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[MichaReiser]

Awesome. I'll have some fun merging this with my comments refactor :D

[denbezrukov]

Awesome. I'll have some fun merging this with my comments refactor :D

Oh, sorry.
We can wait your MR and after I can try to merge it after your refactor. Is it better?

BTW: I've found strange comments behaviour with union types.
Playground

[MichaReiser]

Awesome. I'll have some fun merging this with my comments refactor :D

Oh, sorry. We can wait your MR and after I can try to merge it after your refactor. Is it better?

BTW: I've found strange comments behaviour with union types. Playground

Don't be. It helps me a big deal when working on matching the union and intersection type comments handling because I now only have too look into how comments are formatted and can assume that the rest works as expected.

Don't worry. I'll look into the comment placement. We soon have better tooling to place comments well.