fix(fund): support funding string shorthand

[ruyadorno]

Overview

In the approved RFC it was documented that npm fund should also support a shorthand version of the funding property using only a string instead of an object.

✏️ Changes

• Fixes funding behavior to normalize a string argument into valid info
• Add tests to make sure everything works as expected

🔗 References

• Approved RFC: https://github.com/npm/rfcs/blob/2d2f00457ab19b3003eb6ac5ab3d250259fd5a81/accepted/0017-add-funding-support.md
• User land request: Add package.json funding property sindresorhus/ky#192

🔍 Testing

Manual testing:
In a folder with a given package.json:

{
  "name": "foo",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "funding": "http://example.com"
}

Running npm fund should output:

$ npm fund
foo@1.0.0
└── url: http://example.com

✅ This change has unit test coverage
✅ This change has integration test coverage

🔥 Rollback

If we observe something wrong with this change in production, how should we respond?

This can be reverted at any time

[ljharb]

I tried this and discovered it didn't work.

Also, what about multiple values? Should/could it accept an array too?

[ruyadorno]

Also, what about multiple values? Should/could it accept an array too?

@ljharb multiple values are outside of the scope of the approved RFC 😬

[ljharb]

Gotcha - given that packages have multiple authors, and a single author can have multiple funding options (i have GitHub sponsors and tidelift, for example) - it’d be great to add that. I’ll try to find time to write an RFC, if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

[ruyadorno]

oh yeah 🙏 please do, btw we have the OpenRFC call happening today

[mikemimik]

small nit

LGTM!

[mikemimik]

nit: I would change this syntax to a one liner; { url: funding }. When I read this now it makes me think it's a block scope and something interesting is happening.