Update: Rethink options for naming-convention and require-description

[ilyavolodin]

Right now, naming-convention allows for too much configuration in some cases (mostly around fields), and doesn't allow specific configuration around types (enum vs input vs type).
On the other hand, require-description only has 3 options and not very flexible. Those two should follow the same convention for configuration options.
One possibility is to allow arbitrary ASTNodes to be listed in the configuration, and provide high-level wrappers (fields, types, etc.)

[ilyavolodin]

Proposed new format:
['error', { fields: 'PascalCase', types: 'camelCase', overrides: { ASTNode: 'camelCase' } }] where:
types - will include ObjectTypeDefinition, ObjectTypeExtentons, InputObjectTypeDefinition, EnumTypeDefintion, ScalarTypeDefinition, UnionTypeDefinition, InterfaceTypeDefinition
fields - will include InputValueDefinition, FieldDefintion, VariableDeifnitions, directiveDefintion
and overrides will accept any valid GraphQL AST node name