fix(types): add all globalOnly=true options to RepoGlobalConfig

[RahulGautamSingh]

Changes

• Added all globalOnly=true options to RepoGlobalConfig
• Added all the options to GlobalConfig.OPTIONS
• Added a test to confirm GlobalConfig.OPTIONS includes all options with globalOnly=true for consistency in future

Context

Closes: #9603
Doing this as a part of #23868

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

• I have updated the documentation, or
• No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

• Code inspection only, or
• Newly added/modified unit tests, or
• No unit tests but ran on a real repository, or
• Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

[rarkins]

Will ones like this still be deleted from config at an early stage, and not copied available via GlobalConfig.get()?

[RahulGautamSingh]

These options will now be available via GlobalConfig.get().

They weren't available previously, because they were present in GlobalConfig.OPTIONS and were ignored by GlobalConfig,set(). The logic thought these weren't global config options., therefore instead of setting it to GlobalConfig it just returned it and then they got added to the repoConfig (renovate.json).

This happens here:

renovate/lib/workers/repository/index.ts

Lines 41 to 43 in effb8b6

	let config = GlobalConfig.set(
	applySecretsToConfig(repoConfig, undefined, false)
	);

[rarkins]

I don't think we ever want to GlobalConfig.get() them. So the question is whether this is a bad thing or not.

[viceice]

needs real tests, I think it also needs more code changes to use the global config get function. otherwise this probably breaks existing behavior.

[RahulGautamSingh]

needs real tests, I think it also needs more code changes to use the global config get function. otherwise this probably breaks existing behavior.

Yes. Should I divide this into multiple PRs each targeting a related group of options
eg. autodiscover, autodiscoverFilter, autoDiscoverTopic

[rarkins]

No, this is definition not right

[rarkins]

Not right

[rarkins]

Please go back to the issue and discuss approaches there instead. This does not seem like the right approach