Scope not considered when checking existence of ESLint/Prettier plugins

[paescuj]

Describe the bug

Hey, thank you very much for this awesome project ❤️

I plan to create a customized ESLint config package based on @antfu/eslint-config.
While doing so, I noticed that the existence checks for the ESLint/Prettier plugins packages (e.g. eslint-plugin-format) are not considering the module scope. Since the plugins are imported from within @antfu/eslint-config, these packages should be expected in the same scope.

my-package                    ← is looking here for plugins
└── my-eslint-config
    ├── @antfu/eslint-config
    ├── eslint-plugin-format  ← should look here
    ├── prettier
    └── ...

While the setup above technically works, @antfu/eslint-config wants to install the "missing" plugins when called from my-package.

This is due to the fact that the function used to check the packages, isPackageExists from local-pkg using mlly, is using the current working directory as the resolving path by default: https://github.com/unjs/mlly/blob/d13b8bcfa61c23b2f3a0893942e22fa0e1b79d5b/src/resolve.ts#L98-L100

Obviously, this is only an issue when the node modules are organized in a non-flat structure, like with pnpm.

Repro is based on local-pkg. Let me know if you'd like one for @antfu/eslint-config instead.

Reproduction

https://github.com/paescuj/is-package-exists-scope-repro

System Info

N/A

Used Package Manager

pnpm

Validations

• Follow our Code of Conduct
• Read the Contributing Guide.
• Check that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• Check that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A, please open a GitHub Discussion instead.
• The provided reproduction is a minimal reproducible of the bug.

Contributions

• I am willing to submit a PR to fix this issue
• I am willing to submit a PR with failing tests (actually just go ahead and do it, thanks!)