feat(eslint-plugin): [prefer-promise-reject-errors] add rule

[auvred]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Base rule extension: [prefer-promise-reject-errors] #7687
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

I tried to migrate the original rule with only type information added (it allows to detect PromiseConstructor like and Error like variables)

Also I moved isErrorLike function to the type-utils package (I hope it's the right place for this function) as its logic may be reused both in prefer-promise-reject-errors and no-throw-literal

I copied incorrect and correct examples from no-throw-literal because I found them applicable. But maybe there are too many examples for this rule

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @auvred!

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	bd20782
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/659a6189a92e2f00080aa1f9
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-8011--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 90 (🔴 down 9 from production) Accessibility: 100 (no change from production) Best Practices: 92 (no change from production) SEO: 98 (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 site configuration.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Awesome, really solid work here - thanks for working on it @auvred!

It's interesting that this is the first rule to really need to check whether something is actually a 'PromiseConstructor'. Others have just approximated comparisons to Thenable.

A few touchups & refactors requested, but the general direction looks great to me! 🚀

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Refactor] This is roughly the same logic as isErrorLike's for checking if it's a built-in of a particular name. Could you extract into a shared helper for this too?

[auvred]

Not sure about the function name, but I extracted it: https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/pull/8011/files#diff-75626015398ba4cc6293d6ec23077170a50f23e306b326a44966e44448c3edf2

---

TODO: refactor these places to use this function

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-implied-eval.ts

Lines 82 to 90 in 705370a

	if (symbol && symbol.escapedName === FUNCTION_CONSTRUCTOR) {
	const declarations = symbol.getDeclarations() ?? [];
	for (const declaration of declarations) {
	const sourceFile = declaration.getSourceFile();
	if (services.program.isSourceFileDefaultLibrary(sourceFile)) {
	return true;
	}
	}
	}

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-implied-eval.ts

Lines 145 to 153 in 705370a

	if (symbol) {
	const declarations = symbol.getDeclarations() ?? [];
	for (const declaration of declarations) {
	const sourceFile = declaration.getSourceFile();
	if (services.program.isSourceFileDefaultLibrary(sourceFile)) {
	context.report({ node, messageId: 'noFunctionConstructor' });
	return;
	}
	}

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

LGTM! If you want to do that refactor in this PR I'd happily approve. Or we can leave it as a good first issue followup. Either way.

[auvred]

Let's open a followup with good first issue ;)

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

This looks lovely, thanks! 🙌

No blocking requests (other than the "guarantee" nit) from me. Just some touchup suggestions. Feel free to wontfix or do them, and then we can merge. Or if you don't have time I'll take another look soon. Cheers!

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Sorry, two blocking requests:

• The variable readability change actually introduced a performance regression - lmk if the suggestion doesn't make sense?
• Apologies, I missed commenting on a couple of missing test cases

Since I already approved I do feel bad now requesting changes. If you don't have energy+time then no worries. I can apply these soon.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Super, thanks! This looks great. 🚀