fix(eslint-plugin): replace auto-fix of class literal property style rule with suggestion

[Melandra]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Bug: [class-literal-property-style] The overridden literal getter does not pass lint and incorrectly auto-fix #5962
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

This PR changes the fixer for the class literal property style rule in the eslint-plugin package from an autofixer to a suggestion fixer.

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @Melandra!

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	8fdefa1
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/64ab0bfc771b4e000877943b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-7054--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

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

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit 8fdefa1. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this branch

---

✅ Successfully ran 25 targets

• Node 18 - nx test eslint-plugin
• Node 14 - nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test type-utils
• Node 18 - nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude website
• Node 18 - nx test utils
• Node 18 - nx test visitor-keys
• nx run-many --target=lint --parallel
• Node 14 - nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude website
• Node 14 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=typecheck --parallel
• Node 14 - nx test utils --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test parser --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test ast-spec
• Node 14 - nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test scope-manager
• Node 18 - nx test parser
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude website
• Node 18 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• Node 18 - nx test typescript-estree
• Node 18 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7054 (ba8be5b) into main (5166a00) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head ba8be5b differs from pull request most recent head 8fdefa1. Consider uploading reports for the commit 8fdefa1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7054      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.38%   87.41%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         386      386              
  Lines       13193    13216      +23     
  Branches     3867     3879      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits        11529    11553      +24     
+ Misses       1298     1296       -2     
- Partials      366      367       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	87.41% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...t-plugin/src/rules/class-literal-property-style.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

[Melandra]

I wasn't sure what messaging to use here, I'm open for other suggestions 🙂

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Ah yeah these can be tricky. Searching around other rules that have hasSuggestions: true, we normally go with language like "Do X with Y". Here I think that'd be:

- 'Try replacing the literals with readonly fields.'
+ 'Replace the literals with readonly fields.'

What do you think about that?

[Melandra]

Yes, that sounds good, I've updated both suggestion messages.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

🙌 The code looks great - love a clean swap like this one!

Just requesting changes to suggest a change to the text, as you brought up. Thoughts?

If you're happy with the suggestion or have one of your own then ✅ we can merge!

(sorry for the delay in reviewing - we've been focusing on v6...)

[Melandra]

No worries 🙂
I've update the messages as you proposed.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

🙌 Super, thanks @Melandra!