refactor(eslint-plugin): avoid looking for nodes that do not match the provided options

[rafaelss95]

Context: #3899 (comment)

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @rafaelss95!

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. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives thousands of unique visitors per day.

[rafaelss95]

I went with destructuring options to avoid options[Option.xyz] everywhere, but I can revert this part if desired.

[nx-cloud]

Nx Cloud Report

CI ran the following commands for commit 467fa6c. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

Status	Command
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin-tslint
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin-tslint
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin-internal
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin-tslint
	Node 14.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin-tslint
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin
	Node 14.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin
	Node 12.x - nx run-many --target=typecheck --all --parallel
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/parser
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/experimental-utils
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/scope-manager
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/visitor-keys
	Node 12.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/typescript-estree
	Node 12.x - nx run-many --target=build --all --parallel
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/parser
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/experimental-utils
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/scope-manager
	Node 16.x - nx test @typescript-eslint/visitor-keys

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3922 (467fa6c) into master (7842090) will increase coverage by 0.24%.
The diff coverage is 85.59%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3922      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.12%   93.37%   +0.24%     
==========================================
  Files         277      153     -124     
  Lines        9781     8132    -1649     
  Branches     2851     2576     -275     
==========================================
- Hits         9109     7593    -1516     
+ Misses        244      182      -62     
+ Partials      428      357      -71     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	93.37% <85.59%> (+0.24%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...plugin/src/rules/explicit-module-boundary-types.ts	89.47% <ø> (ø)
...kages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/init-declarations.ts	81.25% <ø> (-1.11%)	⬇️
...nt-plugin/src/rules/lines-between-class-members.ts	92.85% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-duplicate-imports.ts	95.55% <ø> (-0.10%)	⬇️
...s/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-unused-expressions.ts	89.47% <0.00%> (ø)
...lugin/src/rules/prefer-readonly-parameter-types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
.../eslint-plugin/src/rules/method-signature-style.ts	85.71% <75.60%> (-1.50%)	⬇️
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/typedef.ts	92.10% <82.60%> (-3.95%)	⬇️
...lugin/src/rules/consistent-indexed-object-style.ts	90.00% <95.45%> (ø)
packages/eslint-plugin-tslint/src/rules/config.ts	97.36% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 137 more

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

I love it 🚀 !

Wondering if it would be doable to make a lint rule for ESLint rules that enforces this kind of check...

[bradzacher]

it's probably too complicated to statically analyse for.
I wonder if instead there was a way we could build an API for this style to make it easier to build for.

[bradzacher]

this change in logic is incorrect - #4033
There was no "valid" test case covering memberVariableDeclaration: true - hence this slipped through

old logic

if (
  !(node.value && isVariableDeclarationIgnoreFunction(node.value)) &&
  !node.typeAnnotation
) {
  report();
}

new logic

if (
  !node.value ||
  !isVariableDeclarationIgnoreFunction(node.value) ||
  !node.typeAnnotation
) {
  report();
}