feat(eslint-plugin): apply final v6 changes to configs

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Configs: Apply changes to config presets for v6 #6759
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

Applies the final set of changes to preset configs for v6, as discussed in #6014.

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @JoshuaKGoldberg!

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	e8855fa
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/648f00b6847d080008cd23e0
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-7110--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 settings.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7110 (e8855fa) into v6 (89b14f2) will decrease coverage by 0.25%.
The diff coverage is 62.50%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               v6    #7110      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.75%   87.50%   -0.25%     
==========================================
  Files         372      372              
  Lines       12814    12849      +35     
  Branches     3800     3813      +13     
==========================================
- Hits        11245    11244       -1     
- Misses       1193     1227      +34     
- Partials      376      378       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	87.50% <62.50%> (-0.25%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...eslint-plugin/src/rules/consistent-type-exports.ts	97.67% <ø> (ø)
...kages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-base-to-string.ts	98.38% <ø> (ø)
...t-plugin/src/rules/no-confusing-void-expression.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...plugin/src/rules/no-duplicate-type-constituents.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ackages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-implied-eval.ts	96.92% <ø> (ø)
...plugin/src/rules/no-redundant-type-constituents.ts	92.36% <ø> (ø)
packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-shadow.ts	77.65% <ø> (ø)
...-plugin/src/rules/no-unsafe-declaration-merging.ts	77.77% <ø> (ø)
...lint-plugin/src/rules/no-unsafe-enum-comparison.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...lint-plugin/src/rules/prefer-nullish-coalescing.ts	96.61% <ø> (-3.39%)	⬇️
... and 12 more

... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit e8855fa. 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 31 targets

• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=lint --parallel
• Node 20 - nx test typescript-estree
• Node 20 - nx test utils
• Node 20 - nx run types:build
• Node 20 - nx test visitor-keys
• Node 20 - nx test scope-manager
• Node 20 - nx test type-utils
• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• Node 20 - nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types
• Node 16 - nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• Node 20 - nx test parser
• Node 20 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint
• Node 20 - nx test repo-tools
• Node 16 - nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx run types:build
• Node 20 - nx test ast-spec
• Node 16 - nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test utils --coverage=false
• nx run integration-tests:test
• Node 16 - nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=typecheck --parallel
• Node 16 - nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test parser --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test repo-tools --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• Node 16 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint --coverage=false
• nx run types:build
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude=website --exclude=website-eslint

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[bradzacher]

@JoshuaKGoldberg i don't remember our discussion here - why did we turn all of the options on?
I thought we discussed that turning all the rule options on was bad as it made the rule effectively useless.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

The issue was that it was chafing a lot of users by being very strict by default. A lot of folks are intentionally e.g. logging template literal strings with various primitives inside.

This does bring up the idea of having different configs in the strict ruleset than recommended... that would be a nice way to still get folks using the rule to its fullest if they want to be more strict. 🤔 #7318

[bradzacher]

Your example is template strings - but this is restrict-plus-operands.

So was this an accidental mix-up?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

I think it applies to both of them. I've seen both happen with users. Which is why I keep mixing them up in comments 😅 to me, they're similar -just not exactly the same- cases.

[bradzacher]

I guess the question is - why even have these turned on at all if all the options are on by default?
The rules enforce pretty nothing like this so it's just wasted lint time.

Eg for RPO there's the following cases. Of these 16 cases the default options mean the rule only matches FOUR cases - two of which are TS already errors.

So we're recommending a rule to everyone to stop them from doing: string + object and string + unknown. The former is also banned under no-base-to-string, and one could argue the latter should be allowed under the allowAny option.

tl;dr - why are we even turning on the rules in the recommended set if they don't do anything with an overly permissive default option?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

A couple reasons swayed me:

• (lesser) There is benefit to string + unknown
• (greater) I've seen a projects turn off no-base-to-string without turning off restrict-plus-operands

From a performance perspective, if one of these two rules is already asking for the types of these, I some level of caching on the TypeScript side would make the other rule not a significant change.

[bradzacher]

The thing I'd point to is that we added this big caution block to the RPO docs because we didn't think people using the options was good - and yet it's the default that everyone uses these options?
https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/restrict-plus-operands#:~:text=%2C%0A%5D%3B-,CAUTION,-We%20generally%20recommend

Just seems like we're contradicting ourselves "don't use these options but also they're all turned on by default"

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Yeah :/ agreed. I don't like this.

[bradzacher]

Personal preference:
Given this rule is really doing nothing and a lot of people don't like it - we should just undo this change and only include it in strict-type-checked