[rb][BiDi] Add Script module commands and types

[TamsilAmani]

Description

Add script module commands and types

Motivation and Context

Implement script module commands and types as described in https://w3c.github.io/webdriver-bidi/#module-script.
The majority of classes and interfaces are mapping the common data types as described in https://w3c.github.io/webdriver-bidi/#data-types.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist

• I have read the contributing document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[TamsilAmani]

I have to add one more test for this parameter. I will add it shortly. Also, the work for add/remove preload script will be pushed in a separate PR.

[p0deje]

That's quite a lot of code, any chance we could avoid all the type mapping and just rely on native Ruby types? I understand that not every type exists, but I am not sure when those would be needed as-is? For instance, is there any reason why someone would prefer a returned EvaluateResultException object instead of raised Ruby exception? The latter allows leveraging regular Ruby being ... rescue .. ned to handle exceptions, rather than check for the returned object class.

[titusfortner]

Yeah, this is a lot of strict typing for Ruby. There is no compile time error checking, so there's less need for all the "enums" and type wrappers. Unless it needs to be processed, it's probably better to just return things as Hashes.

[TamsilAmani]

Ok. So I'll try to remove custom-defined classes/objects where possible. I am inclined to go with what is mentioned in w3c spec hence creating those classes. I will push the commit with relevant changes soon. Thank you @titusfortner and @p0deje

[TamsilAmani]

@p0deje @titusfortner
Changes made as per the suggestions. Now I am giving the response to the user as it is. No wrapping into object for now.

[titusfortner]

Ruby shouldn't be enforcing types this way. We need a better approach for it

[diemol]

Are we ever merging this?