feat: add suggestion to remove parameter properties

[AlexMunoz]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes 🚀 Feature: Add suggestions to parameter-properties rule #11
• That issue was marked as status: accepting prs
• Steps in CONTRIBUTING.md were taken

Overview

• Add suggestion
• Update Docs

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

A good start! This one will be a bit more involved though. 💪

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

You can ignore the Compliance and Lint Docs failures, by the way. I'm taking a look now... 🤔

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

OK if you merge the latest main branch into this one, the CI complaints should go away.

As for Compliance, it's mtfoley/pr-compliance-action#401. I fixed it in this PR by switching the fix link from #011 to #11. I don't think you did anything wrong, it's just a discrepancy between what GitHub allows vs. the action.

As for the odd Compliance errors,
mtfoley/pr-compliance-action#368 -> JoshuaKGoldberg/create-typescript-app#457 has context if you're curious:

1. PRs sent from forks don't have the same permissions for commenting on the PR
2. The compliance action wants to give a comment requesting a change, but that fails - and the action isn't gracefully handing that failure

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.24731% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.24%. Comparing base (dda2300) to head (03e62b2).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/rules/parameter-properties.ts	89.24%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #14      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   96.24%   -3.76%     
===========================================
  Files            6        6              
  Lines          174      266      +92     
  Branches        18       32      +14     
===========================================
+ Hits           174      256      +82     
- Misses           0       10      +10     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[AlexMunoz]

Hello @JoshuaKGoldberg, I have a version that works, but it has some details. Could you please take a look?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Great progress! 🚀

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

These three if statements are still missing coverage. You can check this locally with pnpm run test run --coverage -> opening coverage/index.html in a browser. For each case, >=1 of the following 3 is happening:

• It's a good check for a real case that should be unit tested
• The case it checks for can't be hit, and:
  • Removing it can be done without issue
  • It's helpful for type narrowing - which would mean a type assertion should be used here, with a comment to a new or existing issue on typescript-eslint to improve the AST

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Testing] These tests are looking good! I took a deeper look through code and think there are some more cases to handle:

• Parameter property with both an accessibility and readonly
• Comments before, inside, and after the parameter properties
• Multiple parameters - both as properties and just normal ones
• Existing properties that happen to have the same name
• Constructor bodies with statements inside nodes inside the body e.g.:

  constructor(...) {
      {
          this.a = a;
      }
  }

  I'm not suggesting changing logic to handle deep constructor bodies better, I think it's fine as-is. This is just something to future-proof.

Apologies for not mentioning these sooner, seeing the implementation was very helpful for me to ideate how to break the suggestions.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Testing] Similar comment here as earlier in this file, several of these lines can be commented out without any resultant test failures.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Style] A bit more succinct of a declaration: fixer functions can be generators! Instead of returning a full array of fixes, they can yield back each fix as they get to them. Switching over saves something like 10 lines in total 😎:

Suggested change

	fix(fixer) {
	const fixes: RuleFix[] = [];
	fixes.push(
	fixer.insertTextBefore(
	classBody.body[0],
	`${fieldDeclaration}\n`,
	),
	);
	*fix(fixer) {
	yield fixer.insertTextBefore(
	classBody.body[0],
	`${fieldDeclaration}\n`,
	);

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

👋 @AlexMunoz, just checking in - are you blocked on anything?