test(eslint-plugin): [consistent-type-exports] add more shadowed imports tests

[Tamashoo]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Bug: [consistent-type-exports] Importing a shadowing type breaks consistent-type-exports #11761
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

This PR fixes the consistent-type-exports rule to correctly handle cases where imported types are shadowed by local value definitions.

I noticed @ntdiary mentioned working on this in the issue comments. I've submitted my approach here - maintainers, please feel free to compare both solutions and choose the one that works best, or we can collaborate to combine the best aspects of each!

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @Tamashoo!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

---

🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	493c1b2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/typescript-eslint/deploys/6929dafd3c9c1100079fa93a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-11766--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 93 (🔴 down 5 from production) Accessibility: 97 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 92 (no change from production) PWA: 80 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[nx-cloud]

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 493c1b2

Command	Status	Duration	Result
nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false	✅ Succeeded	5m 16s	View ↗
nx run-many -t lint	✅ Succeeded	3m 14s	View ↗
nx run-many -t typecheck	✅ Succeeded	1m 56s	View ↗
nx run types:build	✅ Succeeded	2s	View ↗
nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false	✅ Succeeded	2s	View ↗
nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false	✅ Succeeded	1s	View ↗
nx run integration-tests:test	✅ Succeeded	3s	View ↗
nx run generate-configs	✅ Succeeded	7s	View ↗
Additional runs (29)	✅ Succeeded	...	View ↗

---

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2025-11-28 17:37:46 UTC

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

LGTM, thanks!

Though, I'm not sure what to do given #11769. I suspect we should merge this in first, as it was sent earlier (we don't have any sort of issue claiming system), and see what's left to do with #11769 after?

[ntdiary]

There are two small issues ATM :)

1. should perform the value check during iteration, since there may be multi re-export, e.g

   // a.ts
   export type A = 1
   
   // b.ts
   import { A } from './a'
   const A = 1
   export { A }
   
   // c.ts
   export { A } from './b' // false positive

2. need to handle namespace case, e.g

   // a.ts
   export type A = 1
   
   // b.ts
   import { A } from './a'
   namespace A { export const b = 2 }
   export { A }

I'd personally prefer checking SymbolFlags.Value, looks simpler and robust. However, I'm not entirely sure if it covers all cases. 😅

[Tamashoo]

@JoshuaKGoldberg
Thank you for reviewing!
My understanding is that you only need to merge one of the pull requests.
Looking at #11769, it seems more efficient than this PR.

@ntdiary
According to your comment, should we add these test cases in this time, or in a separate one?

Thanks

[ntdiary]

@ntdiary According to your comment, should we add these test cases in this time, or in a separate one?

Eh, for now, I don't feel strongly about adding those edge cases :), mainly because:

1. the tests I added already cover the regular cases and show that the rule works well.
2. I'm exploring @typescript/vfs, which might change how to write multi-file test (not sure how it'll turn out or whether it'll be accepted, but it seems worth trying first)

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

I'll go ahead and merge #11769 to main, as the approach is a bit more direct - then add in the added test cases from this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.49%. Comparing base (bb9ba53) to head (493c1b2).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #11766   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.49%   90.49%           
=======================================
  Files         522      522           
  Lines       53362    53367    +5     
  Branches     8913     8918    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        48288    48293    +5     
  Misses       5059     5059           
  Partials       15       15           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	90.49% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Thanks @Tamashoo @ntdiary for working on these two PRs & the good discussion around them!