)

<!--
  Thanks for submitting a pull request!
We appreciate you spending the time to work on these changes. Please
provide enough information so that others can review your pull request.
The three fields below are mandatory.

Before submitting a pull request, please make sure the following is
done:

1. Fork [the repository](https://github.com/facebook/react) and create
your branch from `main`.
  2. Run `yarn` in the repository root.
3. If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add tests!
4. Ensure the test suite passes (`yarn test`). Tip: `yarn test --watch
TestName` is helpful in development.
5. Run `yarn test --prod` to test in the production environment. It
supports the same options as `yarn test`.
6. If you need a debugger, run `yarn test --debug --watch TestName`,
open `chrome://inspect`, and press "Inspect".
7. Format your code with
[prettier](https://github.com/prettier/prettier) (`yarn prettier`).
8. Make sure your code lints (`yarn lint`). Tip: `yarn linc` to only
check changed files.
  9. Run the [Flow](https://flowtype.org/) type checks (`yarn flow`).
  10. If you haven't already, complete the CLA.

Learn more about contributing:
https://reactjs.org/docs/how-to-contribute.html
-->

## Summary

<!--
Explain the **motivation** for making this change. What existing problem
does the pull request solve?
-->

Adds changelog entries for the last two minor releases of
`eslint-plugin-react-hooks`. Fixes #31717.

I chose to not include #31208 (8382581)
and #32115 (fd2d279) in the changelog
as they only changed internals that do not affect consumers of the
plugin, and it doesn't seem like the changelog previously included such
changes.

Changes are sorted by importance (rather than by commit date), with the
most important changes first.

## How did you test this change?

<!--
Demonstrate the code is solid. Example: The exact commands you ran and
their output, screenshots / videos if the pull request changes the user
interface.
How exactly did you verify that your PR solves the issue you wanted to
solve?
  If you leave this empty, your PR will very likely be closed.
-->

Docs only, nothing to test.

…th passChildrenWhenCloningPersistedNodes (#32528)

<!--
  Thanks for submitting a pull request!
We appreciate you spending the time to work on these changes. Please
provide enough information so that others can review your pull request.
The three fields below are mandatory.

Before submitting a pull request, please make sure the following is
done:

1. Fork [the repository](https://github.com/facebook/react) and create
your branch from `main`.
  2. Run `yarn` in the repository root.
3. If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add tests!
4. Ensure the test suite passes (`yarn test`). Tip: `yarn test --watch
TestName` is helpful in development.
5. Run `yarn test --prod` to test in the production environment. It
supports the same options as `yarn test`.
6. If you need a debugger, run `yarn test --debug --watch TestName`,
open `chrome://inspect`, and press "Inspect".
7. Format your code with
[prettier](https://github.com/prettier/prettier) (`yarn prettier`).
8. Make sure your code lints (`yarn lint`). Tip: `yarn linc` to only
check changed files.
  9. Run the [Flow](https://flowtype.org/) type checks (`yarn flow`).
  10. If you haven't already, complete the CLA.

Learn more about contributing:
https://reactjs.org/docs/how-to-contribute.html
-->

## Summary

<!--
Explain the **motivation** for making this change. What existing problem
does the pull request solve?
-->

This PR fixes asserts when `passChildrenWhenCloningPersistedNodes` is
enabled for React Native and OffscreenComponent child rendering unhides
host components.

Discussions around possible fixes for the asserts seen in React Native
suggested changing the way we handle hiding/unhiding host components by
updating the fiber state with the hidden host component instead of
submitting a hidden clone Fabric and keeping the original as the current
fiber.

Implementing this fix would require holding onto the original styling of
the hidden host component. The reconciler updates the styling by adding
`display: none` to hide the contents. If the original host component was
already hidden, the renderer would lose that information and remove the
styling when showing the contents again.

To reduce the changes required to make
`passChildrenWhenCloningPersistedNodes` work, this PR falls back to the
original cloning method when OffscreenComponents are part of the
children needed to be added back. This effectively resolve the asserts
triggered by the feature in RN and improves overall performance.

## How did you test this change?

<!--
Demonstrate the code is solid. Example: The exact commands you ran and
their output, screenshots / videos if the pull request changes the user
interface.
How exactly did you verify that your PR solves the issue you wanted to
solve?
  If you leave this empty, your PR will very likely be closed.
-->

This fix was tested by enabling `passChildrenWhenCloningPersistedNodes`
in an app built with React Native that had a repro for triggering the
asserts. The asserts do not occur anymore when using the changes in this
PR.

---------

Co-authored-by: Nick <lefever@meta.com>

Currently in the `compiler` workspace, we invoke esbuild directly to
build most packages (with the exception of `snap`). This has been mostly
fine, but does not allow us to do things like generate type declaration
files.

I would like #32416 to be able to consume the merged
eslint-plugin-react-compiler from source rather than via npm, and one of
the things that has come up from my exploration in that stack using the
compiler from source is that babel-plugin-react-compiler is missing type
declarations. This is primarily because React's build process uses
rollup + rollup-plugin-typescript, which runs tsc. So the merged plugin
needs to typecheck properly in order to build. An alternative might be
to migrate to something like babel with rollup instead to simply strip
types rather than typecheck before building. The minor downside of that
approach is that we would need to manually maintain a d.ts file for
eslint-plugin-react-hooks. For now I would like to see if this PR helps
us make progress rather than go for the slightly worse alternative.

[`tsup`](https://github.com/egoist/tsup) is esbuild based so build
performance is comparable. It is slower when generating d.ts files, but
it's still much faster than rollup which we used prior to esbuild. For
now, I have turned off `dts` by default, and it is only passed when
publishing on npm.

If you want to also generate d.ts files you can run `yarn build --dts`.

```
# BEFORE: build all compiler packages (esbuild)
$ time yarn build

✨  Done in 15.61s.
yarn build  13.82s user 1.54s system 96% cpu 15.842 total

# ---

# AFTER: build all compiler packages (tsup)
$ time yarn build

✨  Done in 12.39s.
yarn build  12.58s user 1.68s system 106% cpu 13.350 total

# ---

# AFTER: build all compiler packages and type declarations (tsup)
$ time yarn build --dts

✨  Done in 30.69s.
yarn build  43.57s user 3.20s system 150% cpu 31.061 total
```

I still need to test if this unblocks #32416 but this stack can be
landed independently though as we could probably just release type
declarations on npm. No one should be using the compiler directly, but
if they really wanted to, lack of type declarations would not stop them
(cf React secret internals).

Note that I still kept esbuild as we still use it directly for forgive.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/facebook/react/pull/32550).
* #32551
* __->__ #32550

Fixes an incorrect condition for running tests in the compiler
workspace.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/facebook/react/pull/32551).
* __->__ #32551
* #32550

Use variant to begin rolling this out internally.

…et too (#32545)

Otherwise these can survive into the next View Transition and cause
havoc to that transition.

This was appearing as a flash in Safari in the fixture when going from
A->B. This triggers a View Transition and at the same time the scroll
position updates in an effect. That fires a scroll event which starts a
gesture. This shouldn't really happen and the SwipeRecognizer should
ideally ignore those but it's good to surface edge cases. That gesture
is blocked on the View Transition finishing and then immediately after
it starts a gesture View Transition. That gesture then picked up the
former Animation from the previous transition which caused issues. This
PR fixes that flash.

Enabling feature detection of early DOM features in a framework is
reckless. I'm not judging other frameworks (but also a little bit).
Because if you do something like `if (moveBefore) moveBefore(a, b) else
insertBefore(a, b)` like we do and then the implementation has to change
there are still too many websites out there that it becomes impossible
to change it. It would break the web. It would instead have to change to
a different name. That's what happened with `contains` -> `includes`.
Counter to popular belief it didn't have anything to do with patching
prototypes. Therefore, ideally frameworks shouldn't start rely on it
until there's two implementations so that there's time for feedback.

That's why we didn't immediately enable this even in experimental.
However, at this point there's probably enough feature detection and it
has shipped long enough in Chrome that it's unlikely to be able to
change at this point.

We can enable it now. For now just in `@experimental` to see if we can
flush out issues with it before bringing it to stable.

This fixes a critical issue with moveBefore. I was told that the
disconnected -> connected case was going to be relaxed and not be an
error but apparently that is not the case.

This means that we can't use this for initial insertions. Only moves.

Unfortunately React's internals doesn't distinguish these cases. This
adds a hack that checks each nodes but this is pretty bad for
performance. We should only call this in one or the other case.

Given that we still need feature detection. Both of which means that
these calls are no longer inlined and this extra code. I wonder if it's
even worth it given that you can't even rely on it working anyway since
not all browsers have it. Kind of don't want to ship this until all
browsers have it.

Even then we'd ideally refactor React to use separate code paths for
initial insertion vs moves. Which leads to some unfortunate code
duplication.

Accidentally copypasted the wrong esbuild config.