feat(rome_js_analyze): noUselessConstructor

[Conaclos]

Summary

This implements no-useless-constructor with two differences:

• We do not detectect useless constructors with a super-call that spreads the legacy arguments.
• We report all empty constructor marked with the public modifier. In contrast, TypeScript ESLint does not report empty constructor marked with the public modifier in a class that inherits of another class.

Test Plan

ESLint tests included.

Changelog

• The PR requires a changelog line

Documentation

• The PR requires documentation
• I will create a new PR to update the documentation

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for docs-rometools failed.

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c4721fc
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-rometools/deploys/64429562c20c66000840cfc9

[ematipico]

You might want to take in consideration TypeScript constructor overload. Some frameworks use that feature

[Conaclos]

You might want to take in consideration TypeScript constructor overload. Some frameworks use that feature

In the provided link, the code uses a parameter property to initialize the injected service.
The rule does not report empty constructors with at least one parameter property.

[denbezrukov]

I was wondering if you could implement a fix for this rule.
Could we remove the constructor?

What do you about a case when we have comments inside the body?

[ematipico]

You might want to take in consideration TypeScript constructor overload. Some frameworks use that feature

In the povided link, the code uses a parameter property to initialize the injected service.
The rule does not report empty constructors with at least one parameter property.

Cool, would you mind add a test case for that?

[Conaclos]

I was wondering if you could implement a fix for this rule. Could we remove the constructor?

What do you about a case when we have comments inside the body?

What I suggest:

• safe fix when there are no comments in the body or jsdoc before the constructor,
• suggested fix otherwise.

What do you think?

EDIT: I applied my suggestion. Waiting for your input :)

[Conaclos]

Cool, would you mind add a test case for that?

Done :)

[denbezrukov]

• safe fix when there are no comments in the body or jsdoc before the constructor

I like that!