Properly type the Map and Set objects

[canova]

I went ahead and checked if the Map or Set objects had unknown types at the time of their declaration in the language server. These are the things I found.

This fixes #5617.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.10390% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.63%. Comparing base (27f4f53) to head (2ff1b40).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/actions/profile-view.ts	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/profile-logic/process-profile.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/selectors/profile.ts	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5623   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.63%   85.63%           
=======================================
  Files         312      312           
  Lines       30892    30892           
  Branches     8420     8420           
=======================================
  Hits        26453    26453           
  Misses       4009     4009           
  Partials      430      430           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mstange]

Sorry for the delay here.

I'm curious why you picked const set: Set<TheType> = new Set() over const set = new Set<TheType>(); . Do you have a preference? I mostly ended up using the latter during the conversion, I think. And I think one of the type-aware lints (which we haven't enabled yet) will remove the : Set<TheType> part because it thinks it's unnecessary, so if we want to enable that lint we'll need to switch to the other form.

[canova]

Heh, I knew I would get this review comment while writing this patch :) I pretty much started with writing it as new Set<TheType> and then I wanted to check the count of the existing code. So I ran rg ":.*new (Map|Set)\(\)" | wc -l and it returned 86. I ran rg "new (Map|Set)<" | wc -l and it returned 62. So I went with the most used one in the codebase.

What do you mean the type-aware lints? I'm not really familiar with them.

[canova]

Actually more accurate regexp would be rg ":.*=.*new (Map|Set)\(\)" | wc -l for the first one. Still 65 though.

[mstange]

What do you mean the type-aware lints? I'm not really familiar with them.

See #5620.
Specifically I think it was @typescript-eslint/no-unnecessary-type-assertion that I had trouble with when I experimented in that PR.

[mstange]

Let's switch to the new Map<T>() syntax instead.

[canova]

Oh, I thought I had already updated the PR, but apparently not. Updated it now!

[mstange]

Thanks!