Docs: Missing metadata property (fixes #13349)

[ajkovar]

If metadata property is missing, fixable essentially gets defaulted
to true. Described this behavior in the docs as well as added
recommendations to include metadata/type properties

Prerequisites checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines.

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

[ ] Documentation update
[ ] 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
[X] Other, please explain:
Imrpoved docs (see commit message).

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

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

[nzakas]

If metadata property is missing, fixable essentially gets defaulted
to true.

Hmm, that seems like a bug. Can you open an issue with a reproduction case?

[ajkovar]

If metadata property is missing, fixable essentially gets defaulted
to true.

Hmm, that seems like a bug. Can you open an issue with a reproduction case?

That was what #13349 was about, no?

A rule without meta is successfully fixed when it has a fixer.

Unless I'm misunderstanding. Seemed like the consensus there was to change the docs.

[ajkovar]

And by the way, I am (of course) open to any suggestions regarding the content of this PR or for closing it in favor of behavioral changes (although I think that original issue would need to be updated to reflect that). I only made changes here based on my interpretation of the discussion in that issue.

[nzakas]

Oops thanks, I missed that. Let me dig in deeper.

[nzakas]

Okay, so it looks like even though the issue was marked as "accepted" for a documentation change that there is still some debate whether that is the correct course of action or not. We can leave this PR open while we try to figure that out.

[mdjermanovic]

After further analysis in #13349, we realized this issue needs a completely different course of action, so I'm closing this PR.

@ajkovar Thanks for your contribution, and apologies. The fix you made was indeed in line with the solution that was accepted at that time.