Fix: func-call-spacing "never" doesn't fix w/ line breaks (fixes #7787)

[platinumazure]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put an "X" next to item)

[ ] Documentation update
[x] Bug fix (template)
[ ] New rule (template)
[ ] Changes an existing rule (template)
[ ] Add autofixing to a rule
[ ] Add a CLI option
[ ] Add something to the core
[ ] Other, please explain:

See #7787.

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

With "func-call-spacing": ["error", "never"], ensure that autofixing only occurs if there are no line terminators in the spacing. This is to avoid conflicts with no-unexpected-multiline, which is indispensable for identifying potential problems in an ASI codebase.

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?

Two questions:

1. Should I update documentation to add auto-fix caveats (i.e., list what won't be fixed)? If so, do we have a standard way of doing that? (I'm not sure I need to because we never guarantee that all violations are fixable.)
2. Technically the warning count is unchanged but the perceived warning count would go up due to some violations no longer being auto-fixed. Is this still semver-patch since the actual pre-autofix warning count is unchanged, or should this be semver-minor? (I know this will be released semver-minor anyway, but I'm asking if I need to change the commit prefix to Update:.)

[mention-bot]

@platinumazure, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @btmills, @kaicataldo and @scriptdaemon to be potential reviewers.

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[not-an-aardvark]

LGTM

Should I update documentation to add auto-fix caveats (i.e., list what won't be fixed)? If so, do we have a standard way of doing that? (I'm not sure I need to because we never guarantee that all violations are fixable.)

I think it's probably fine as-is, but I wouldn't be opposed to updating it. I don't think we have a standard way to do that (and most rules currently don't do it at all), but for eqeqeq I just put a note in the "Rule Details" section.

Technically the warning count is unchanged but the perceived warning count would go up due to some violations no longer being auto-fixed. Is this still semver-patch since the actual pre-autofix warning count is unchanged, or should this be semver-minor? (I know this will be released semver-minor anyway, but I'm asking if I need to change the commit prefix to Update:.)

I think this is semver-patch (and should have the Fix: prefix), because we don't make any guarantees about what gets autofixed by a rule. (This is unlikely to affect most build systems anyway, because people typically only run --fix while developing, and then run without --fix in CI.)

[kaicataldo]

LGTM. Thanks!