refactor: use bpaf

[ematipico]

Summary

This PR refactors our CLI arguments parsing, using bpaf. pico_args doesn't have all the features we need, and it's very difficult to maintain help commands, documentation, all the arguments we want, etc.

Here's a list of the reactors I have done:

• use the derive feature of bpaf;
• the whole Configuration struct is now tagged with all the bpaf directives we need. All the properties that don't need to be exposed as CLI arguments have #[bpaf(hide)]. Although hiding them is not enough, all the chains of types inside a struct must be handled via bpaf directives, which means the lint rules must also be hidden. On the other hand, this could allow us to expose them via CLi if we want to;
• The description/documentation of commands and arguments are all provided via Rust docs, so I copied what we had in the help.rs file in the new Configuration struct;
• Created a new CliOptions which will contain only options related to the CLI, like colors, max-diagnostics , etc.
• All the commands have been declared inside a new type called Command;

Test Plan

Most current tests must stay the same to avoid regressions. The only snapshot tests I have updated are those related to the arguments that fail the parsing. I updated most of the code of tests to adapt them to use bpaf.

I added new tests for each command's --help output. This will help us to understand which arguments we want to show.

Changelog

• The PR requires a changelog line

Documentation

• The PR requires documentation
• I will create a new PR to update the documentation

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-rometools canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	aca6803
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-rometools/deploys/644b77f48ba18800082cc98d

[github-actions]

Parser conformance results on ubuntu-latest

js/262

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	48863	48863	0
Passed	47796	47796	0
Failed	1067	1067	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	97.82%	97.82%	0.00%

jsx/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	40	40	0
Passed	37	37	0
Failed	3	3	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	92.50%	92.50%	0.00%

symbols/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	6212	6212	0
Passed	1763	1763	0
Failed	4449	4449	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	28.38%	28.38%	0.00%

ts/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	639	639	0
Passed	573	573	0
Failed	66	66	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	89.67%	89.67%	0.00%

ts/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	17224	17224	0
Passed	13122	13122	0
Failed	4102	4102	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	76.18%	76.18%	0.00%