## Summary
Introduces `oxc_diagnostics::Diagnostics` — a `Vec<OxcDiagnostic>` newtype that knows the difference between errors and warnings — and makes it the standard diagnostics return value across oxc.
- **New type**: `Diagnostics` with `has_errors()`, `has_warnings()`, `errors()`, `warnings()`, plus `Vec`-like ergonomics (Deref, `IntoIterator`, `Extend`, `From`/`Into<Vec>`) so most call sites are unchanged.
- **Return types**: `ParserReturn`, `SemanticBuilderReturn`, `IsolatedDeclarationsReturn`, the React Compiler `TransformResult`/`LintResult`, and `TransformerReturn` now expose `diagnostics: Diagnostics` instead of `errors: Vec<OxcDiagnostic>` (the React Compiler's separate `errors`/`warnings` are merged into one severity-tagged list).
- **Behaviour**: a React Compiler **error** now stops the transform (no output), while **warnings** flow through and the transform continues. `compile()` aborts codegen only when `diagnostics.has_errors()` — warnings alone no longer abort (previously any diagnostic did).
## Breaking change
Consumers reading `*.errors` on these return values must read `*.diagnostics`. React Compiler consumers that read `.errors`/`.warnings` separately should use `diagnostics.has_errors()` / `diagnostics.errors()` / `diagnostics.warnings()`.
Parser/semantic/isolated-declarations fatality is otherwise unchanged. Builds on the React Compiler transform feature (#23201).
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Replace `#[allow]` with `#[expect]` through the whole codebase.
This also surfaced many places where the `#[allow]` attributes were outdated/pointless and could be removed entirely.
Only places `#[allow]` remains are:
1. In generated code and macros, where lint errors may or may not be triggered depending on the generated code.
2. A few places where clippy malfunctions. These use e.g. `#[allow(unused, clippy::allow_attributes)]`.
After studying google closure compiler, I'm leaning towards a multi-ast-pass infrastructure for the minifier.
This is one of the few places where we are going to trade maintainability over performance, given the goal of the minifier is compression size not performance.
All of the terminologies and separation of concerns are aligned with google closure compiler.
Infrastructure of `terser` and `esbuild` are not suitable for us to study nor pursuit. Their code are so tightly coupled - I failed to comprehend any of them every time I try to walk through a piece of optmization. Google closure compiler despite being written in Java, it's actually the most readable minifier out there.
To improve performance between ast passes, I envision a change detection system over a portion of the code.
The benchmark will demonstrate the performance regression of running 5 ast passes instead of 2.
To complete this PR, I need to figure out "fix-point" and order of these ast passes.
Boshen