Update: make no-lone-blocks report blocks in switch cases (fixes #8047)

[not-an-aardvark]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[x] Bug fix (#8047)

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

This updates no-lone-blocks to report block statements in SwitchCase nodes. As described in #8047, it does not report blocks if they are the only statement in SwitchCase nodes.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

Nothing in particular

[mention-bot]

@not-an-aardvark, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @vitorbal, @jrvidal and @btmills to be potential reviewers.

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[platinumazure]

LGTM, thanks!

[alberto]

I think this is the same case as #7879 so it should be a breaking change too.

[not-an-aardvark]

This is a slightly different case from #7879. #7879 concerns the curly braces containing switch statement bodies, which can optionally be handled by the padded-blocks rule even though they're not actually block statements. Since a user might expect padded-blocks to only handle statements that are actually blocks by default, #7879 is a breaking change. On the other hand, this PR concerns curly braces inside switch cases, which are actually block statements. In my opinion, this is a bugfix (so it's semver-minor), in contrast to #7879 which is changing previously-intentional behavior.

[alberto]

Fair enough.

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[mysticatea]

I'm not confident, but maybe it should ignore the following case.
Sometimes I have seen the style which puts breaks on the same level as cases.
(if my memory is correct, there was a such issue in indent issues.)

switch (a) {
    case 1:
    {
        doSomething();
    }
    break; // SwitchCase has 2 statements and the last one is a BreakStatement.

    case 2:
    {
        doSomething();
    }
    break;
}

[alberto]

@mysticatea I think we could add an exception if it's requested.