feat(linter): added rule for react/jsx-max-depth

[Kenzo-Wada]

related: #1022

added react/jsx-max-depth rule to oxlinter!

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds a new linter rule react/jsx-max-depth that enforces a maximum nesting depth for JSX elements and fragments to improve code readability and maintainability.

Key changes:

• Implemented the jsx-max-depth rule with configurable maximum depth (default: 2)
• Added comprehensive test coverage with both passing and failing test cases
• Registered the rule in the linter's rule registry

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/react/jsx_max_depth.rs	New rule implementation with configuration, depth calculation logic, and test cases
crates/oxc_linter/src/rules.rs	Module declaration and rule registration
crates/oxc_linter/src/generated/rule_runner_impls.rs	Generated RuleRunner implementation for the new rule
crates/oxc_linter/src/snapshots/react_jsx_max_depth.snap	Test snapshot showing expected diagnostic output
crates/oxc_codegen/tests/integration/snapshots/stacktrace_is_correct.snap	Unrelated: Node.js version update (v24.10.0 → v24.12.0)
apps/oxlint/src/snapshots/fixtures__tsgolint_rule_options_--type-aware@oxlint.snap	Unrelated: Test infrastructure changes
apps/oxlint/src/snapshots/fixtures__tsgolint_--type-aware@oxlint.snap	Unrelated: Test infrastructure changes
apps/oxlint/fixtures/tsgolint_fix/fix.ts	Unrelated: Test fixture update

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #17279 will not alter performance

_{Comparing Kenzo-Wada:feat/react-jsx-max-depth (5aef67a) with main (1005c0a)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (91626a6) during the generation of this report, so 1005c0a was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 41 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[camc314]

I re-ported the tests, and not all are passing.

Please try to avoin deleting test cases when porting these rules.

Please mark this as ready for review once the tests are passing, and I will take another look

[Kenzo-Wada]

@camc314 thanks always! i think i've done all tests, now ready to review.

[camc314]

The performance regression here is massive - we'll need to get it down to a much more reasonable level before it can be merged

[camc314]

Thank you!