feat(minor): [sc-24016] enable isolation specification in generated equatable confomance

[supersonicbyte]

Description

As discussed here this PR implements a way to allow the user to specify the isolation of the generated conformances.

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes.

Minimal checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have added DocC code-level documentation for any public interfaces exported by the package
• I have added unit and/or integration tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works

[hassila]

LGTM, I tried it with a sample view with 6.2 and .main isolation, looks working now!

[supersonicbyte]

LGTM, I tried it with a sample view with 6.2 and .main isolation, looks working now!

Awesome! Let's wait to see does @vanvoorden has anything to say and we can merge it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.11189% with 34 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.27%. Comparing base (31e351e) to head (317d3c6).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Equatable.swift	79.10%	14 Missing ⚠️
...sions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Hashable.swift	80.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
...ions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Isolation.swift	82.35%	3 Missing ⚠️
...EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+TypeComplexity.swift	91.18%	3 Missing ⚠️
...nsions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Helpers.swift	96.49%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #29      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.97%   87.27%   -9.70%     
==========================================
  Files          11       16       +5     
  Lines        1122      495     -627     
==========================================
- Hits         1088      432     -656     
- Misses         34       63      +29     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ources/EquatableMacros/EquatableIgnoredMacro.swift	84.21% <100.00%> (ø)
Sources/EquatableMacros/EquatableMacro.swift	97.22% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
...ons/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Diagnostic.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/Extensions/IdentifierTypeSyntax+Extensions.swift	94.44% <100.00%> (ø)
...acros/Extensions/MemberTypeSyntax+Extensions.swift	92.86% <100.00%> (ø)
...acros/Extensions/StructDeclSyntax+Extensions.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ros/Extensions/VariableDeclSyntax+Extensions.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...nsions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Helpers.swift	96.49% <96.49%> (ø)
...ions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Isolation.swift	82.35% <82.35%> (ø)
...EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+TypeComplexity.swift	91.18% <91.18%> (ø)
... and 2 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ources/EquatableMacros/EquatableIgnoredMacro.swift	84.21% <100.00%> (ø)
Sources/EquatableMacros/EquatableMacro.swift	97.22% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
...ons/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Diagnostic.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/Extensions/IdentifierTypeSyntax+Extensions.swift	94.44% <100.00%> (ø)
...acros/Extensions/MemberTypeSyntax+Extensions.swift	92.86% <100.00%> (ø)
...acros/Extensions/StructDeclSyntax+Extensions.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ros/Extensions/VariableDeclSyntax+Extensions.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...nsions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Helpers.swift	96.49% <96.49%> (ø)
...ions/EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+Isolation.swift	82.35% <82.35%> (ø)
...EquatableMacro/EquatableMacro+TypeComplexity.swift	91.18% <91.18%> (ø)
... and 2 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 63e597c...317d3c6. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[vanvoorden]

@supersonicbyte Ahh… so we ended up bumping the min requirement to 602. I was thinking to leave the min requirement where it was but just bump the max requirement to 603. I would generally not always recommend bumping min requirements on point releases. These can be "breaking" changes if clients depend on more than one macro package. If package A has a max requirement of 601 and package B has a min requirement of 602 then trying to import them both together in one place means that SPM might not be able to resolve the dependencies.

[supersonicbyte]

@vanvoorden you're right, definetely a break, sorry! I kinda confused this with something internal and forgot it's open source 😅 .

EDIT:
Made a PR for it: #31