Release 2.2.0

[UlisesGascon]

What's Changed

• test: remove --bail from test script by @Phillip9587 in test: remove --bail from test script #583
• ci: separate lint step by @Phillip9587 in ci: separate lint step #582
• fix: remove skip of test by @bjohansebas in fix: remove skip of test #589
• ci: use lcovonly reporter for the test-ci script by @Phillip9587 in ci: use lcovonly reporter for the test-ci script #584
• docs: remove security file by @bjohansebas in docs: remove security file #590
• fix(docs): replace var with let or const in ReadMe by @Binilkks in fix(docs): replace var with let or const in ReadMe #581
• chore: update test dependencies by @Phillip9587 in chore: update test dependencies #585
• dep: upgrade iconv-lite to ^0.6.3 by @aqeelat in dep: upgrade iconv-lite to ^0.6.3 #588
• Refactor parameterCount to optimize performance by @wojtekmaj in Refactor parameterCount to optimize performance #591
• refactor: normalize common options for all parsers by @Phillip9587 in refactor: normalize common options for all parsers #551
• refactor: cleanup parser options by @Phillip9587 in refactor: cleanup parser options #596

New Contributors

• @Binilkks made their first contribution in fix(docs): replace var with let or const in ReadMe #581
• @aqeelat made their first contribution in dep: upgrade iconv-lite to ^0.6.3 #588
• @wojtekmaj made their first contribution in Refactor parameterCount to optimize performance #591

Full Changelog: v2.1.0...master

[UlisesGascon]

⚠️ @wesleytodd please double check in detail #596 as it is included in this release and I was the only reviewer

[Phillip9587]

Any chance we could try to get #587 into this release?

[wesleytodd]

@Phillip9587 I don't think I fully read that PR but took a quick look just now and I think we should wait on it. The code scanning had some comments (first time seeing that in action, and I think it is actually some good feedback to discuss) and we are shooting to release this asap. It has been dragging on too long and we had a sync on today's working session to try and see what we can land and what might need to go into the next patch. I can keep that tab open for tomorrow and try and give it a review, but I think if you are alright with it maybe we can wait for that one for the next patch (which we can make high priority)?

[wesleytodd]

please double check in detail #596 as it is included in this release and I was the only reviewer

I am not sure I am a big fan of all the optional chaining vs just making sure we always make an options object, but I don't see anything worth blocking over. We can decide if we wanted to take a different approach in the future without any user impact so it is all good imo.