Add package.json > biome config support

[chneau]

Prettier configuration can be set in package.json instead of creating "yet" another file in the root of the project.
I believe in VSCode, when you have the prettier extension, you get the autocompletion on package.json>prettier.

Would it be nice to have the same UX for biome?

[SuperchupuDev]

does biome even look at package.json for configuration?

[chneau]

Woops, I forgot I was on the vscode repo, my bad

[chneau]

Opened the discussion on the main repo #2061

[arendjr]

Biome does have the ability to load package.json now, but I’m not sure about the desirability of adding Biome’s own configuration to it as well. Our config loading is already very complex, and a feature like this would complicate matters for monorepos, for instance, which may have a single biome.json but multiple package.json files spread all over.

[SuperchupuDev]

personally, i don't think cluttering package.json with third party configs is a good practice nor something biome should encourage. when uploading a package to npm, the file is uploaded as-is which can make the package size slightly bigger. this is probably not an issue at a small scale, but think about how many gigabytes of bandwidth and watts have been wasted on just downloading and storing unnecessary package.json fields for all downloads of packages that happen to clutter package.json that could be avoided using separate config files

[ematipico]

I don't think I will ever agree to have this as an option:

• Our configuration is very big, and we risk to make package.json even bigger.
• If you use it in a package.json that you publish on npmjs.org, you end up sharing this configuration with other users, and they won't even use it.
• You can't use the schema for auto-completion.

[Conaclos]

I second this.
Moreover, using package.json as a central place for configuration is now highly discouraged.
More and more tools are giving up their support of a such practice.