Multi-line `if`/`for` statements in JS can be confusing since there
aren’t braces to indicate which code is enclosed in the statement. I set
the configuration to `multi-line` to enforce usage of braces for
multi-line statement bodies, but still allow things like `if (foo)
return;`. I additionally added the `consistent` option to require braces
for all elements of an if/else chain if one element has it. As you can
see, this set of options pretty closely matches the existing code style.

I was going to comment in #1008 about this stylistic change but realized
that it’s (IMO) a little impolite to ask for code style changes unless
they can be automatically enforced.

Note that `if (foo) { \n return; \n }` is still valid and won’t be
collapsed. I tried to automatically collapse all such cases but it was a
lot of files and I didn’t want to pick out the useful from the useless
differences.

This attempts to add priorities for goal templates and addresses most of
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual/issues/959

.

I couldn't find a good way to preserve both "Apply" and "Overwrite"
operations, so this PR does away with the current "Apply" action
behavior. Every box with a budgeted value will be overwritten if a
template goal is present.

The added syntax to define priorities is as follows:
#template    -- priority 0, highest priority
#template-1  --priority 1, 2nd highest priority
#template-2 --priority 2, 3rd highest priority
#template-N --priority N, as many as you'd like.

~~Leaving as a draft as this may not be the preferred implementation but
I wanted others to be able to try it with netlify.~~

---------

Co-authored-by: Caleb Young <cwy@rincon.com>

Another batch of `loot-core` migrated.

This is an initial concept for adding percent based goal targets.

This version works by using a string in the form of: 
#template 10% of Income <- Income is an income category name. Only
income category names will work here currently.
or
#template 10% of all income<- 'all income' is a keyword in this context
and will base the calculation on the total income for the month.

Some of the nicer touches like Jed's polite notification that the syntax
isn't correct is not implemented here yet.

I've changed the method of calculating the budgeted amount. There may be
a more efficient way of writing the loop, so I'm looking forward to the
review.

This change implements the mathematics of
(Target1+Target2+TargetN-Last_months_category_balance) / (MonthsRemaing1
+ MonthsRemaining2 + MonthsRemaingN) * N. This is an averaged approach
for multiple templates in the same category. It will appear to
overbudget or underbudget some months compared to multiple single
targets in different categories, yet there should always be enough saved
in the category to satisfy the target due.

Setting a target, it's assumed that money will be spent in the
appropriate month, When a target reaches maturity, the money in the
category associated with that target should be spent or moved so the
remaining targets continue to be funded. I don't see an easy way of
fixing that, but I hope this change will be of some help.

Current method:
Notice how the Bills (flexible) category reduces each month, resulting
in larger budgeted amounts later in the goal cycle.


![Templates-now](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/20625555/230964939-d20ca72b-1055-471a-9044-7cd640f19875.gif)

Proposed method:
**Note: The fact that the initial fill in this example equals the
expected fill is a coincidence based on the template values I chose. The
initial fills can be different from expected fill.


![Templates-proposed](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/20625555/230965265-669f996c-3112-437b-ab83-9715ea5dfc7f.gif)

Co-authored-by: Jed Fox <git@jedfox.com>

This improves the error reporting when issues are found with Goal
Templates. Before these changes, the only error that would be reported
is the "Bills" error in the image while the other issues would be
ignored and not funded.

I believe this change allows for having multiple 'by' rules in the same
category. It seems to be working well for my purposes, but I would
appreciate further testing to assure there aren't regressions.

Example:

#template 300 by 2023-06
#template 3000 by 2023-08

Before this PR, having these two lines in the notes would only budget
funds for the earliest of the two strings and ignore the 3000 funding
target. With this PR, the sum of the two funding targets will be
respected.

Removing
- Debugger
- `perf-deeets`
- `codemirror`

Thanks @kidglove57 for spotting this issue and helping me track down the
cause!

---------

Co-authored-by: Matiss Janis Aboltins <matiss@mja.lv>

* Dedupe loot-core webpack configs

* Swap to parsing using Peggy

* Actually record syntax errors

* Refactor template types

* Add notifications after applying the templates

* “Successfully”

* Try a Nearley grammar

* Revert "Try a Nearley grammar"

This reverts commit 1e11c07b855a492b905f1291c3eadd93f78ac3de.

Not going with this approach since the error messages are inscrutable.

* switch to PEG.js which has slightly better tooling support

* fix parser

* Fix error reporting

* Adjust grammar for better error messages

Also allow spaces between currency symbol and number

* Fix grammar

* Make #template prefix case insensitive

* Trailing commas

* Remove patch-package from loot-core

*  (prettier) adding trailing commas

* More commas