feat(server): check that serverMode implementation is correct

[knagaitsev]

• This is a bugfix
• This is a feature
• This is a code refactor
• This is a test update
• This is a docs update
• This is a metadata update

For Bugs and Features; did you add new tests?

Yes

Motivation / Use-Case

This feature gives useful error messages when the user provides an incorrect serverMode implementation.

Breaking Changes

None

Additional Info

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.82%. Comparing base (26211fc) to head (cf6e74a).
⚠️ Report is 1779 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2051      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.77%   92.82%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          29       29              
  Lines        1149     1156       +7     
  Branches      327      329       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         1066     1073       +7     
  Misses         79       79              
  Partials        4        4              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[alexander-akait]

I think it is extra checking and should be solved using schema-util instead adding checks in source code, we should search way how we can integrate this in schema util

[knagaitsev]

I think it is extra checking and should be solved using schema-util instead adding checks in source code, we should search way how we can integrate this in schema util

Switched to use of schema-util. I don't think it has the ability out of the box to check the parameter count of a function, but also that is not a check we really need.

[alexander-akait]

Good job, one note

[alexander-akait]

I think we can have one schema (put this inside original schema) for better maintenance

[knagaitsev]

@evilebottnawi The problem is that I couldn't find a way to test the prototype of a function with schema-utils when it matched "instanceof": "Function". I think it only looks at "properties" if the thing in question matches "type": "object", hence why I pass ServerImplementation.prototype into the schema

[knagaitsev]

Unless you just mean make options.json into something like:

{
"defaultSchema": { ... },
"socketServerImplementationPrototypeSchema": { ... }
}

But that could be a breaking change if something else is using this schema.

[alexander-akait]

hm we can rewrite schema-utils and allow to define own validator (where we can implement any logic), i will take care about this, let's keep this PR open, it is not high priority because we can improve documentation