Migrate IntersectionObserverEntry to KDL

[Bashamega]

Also, I added full support for interface removals.
Everything now should be optionally nested except for the signature, because the emitter throws an error otherwise. So I had to add special handling for it in the converter

[github-actions]

Thanks for the PR!

This section of the codebase is owned by @saschanaz - if they write a comment saying "LGTM" then it will be merged.

[saschanaz]

Also, I added full support for interface removals. Everything now should be optionally nested except for the signature, because the emitter throws an error otherwise. So I had to add special handling for it in the converter

Can you eleborate, like what kind of error? Working around an error is only good when we know what's happening there.

[Bashamega]

Also, I added full support for interface removals. Everything now should be optionally nested except for the signature, because the emitter throws an error otherwise. So I had to add special handling for it in the converter

Can you eleborate, like what kind of error? Working around an error is only good when we know what's happening there.

Scratch that, I have updated the syntax

[saschanaz]

This would cause problem for non-removal patches, no?

[Bashamega]

This wouldn't cause an issue; we already have patches for non-removal methods, and it is working prefectly

[saschanaz]

I mean if we want to add a signature... Hmm, but doing so would require a type, so maybe this is fine.

[Bashamega]

Yes, so this is good. Anything else?

[saschanaz]

Not "good" but more like "I can live with this for now" for me... but yeah this should be okay.

[saschanaz]

but constructors don't have a return type, so constructor is also a valid non-removal constructor. Doing this would break adding a parameter-less constructor 🤔

(Meaning we should throw if type exists for constructor btw)

[Bashamega]

I will open another one of the throwing an error. It wouldn't count as a removal because the parameters array will be filled. We check for both

[saschanaz]

Maybe remove it when signatureIndex exists? Having signatureIndex without having params or types don't make sense.

(In that case we'll only remove the constructor/method's signature but not themselves, which I think is fine as it should ultimately behave same)

[Bashamega]

Looks good to me 😊

[saschanaz]

Nah currently signatureIndex is fully ignored because it doesn't enter type || params.length > 0 check. I'll investigate more.