Repo: Add a util for determining whether a node is a specific identifier

[StyleShit]

Suggestion

Splits from #8295 (comment)

The proposal is to go over all of the places where we check if a node is a specific identifier and use a util for that. Here are a couple of examples of places we do this:

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/array-type.ts

Lines 31 to 34 in 82cb9dd

	if (
	node.typeName.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier &&
	node.typeName.name === 'Array'
	) {

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/consistent-type-assertions.ts

Lines 102 to 105 in a54a60b

	return (
	node.typeName.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier &&
	node.typeName.name === 'const'
	);

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-explicit-any.ts

Lines 110 to 114 in e77616b

	return (
	node.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.TSTypeReference &&
	node.typeName.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier &&
	['Array', 'ReadonlyArray'].includes(node.typeName.name)
	);

I think we can take inspiration from this existing function and extract it to a util:

typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-inferrable-types.ts

Lines 73 to 80 in a54a60b

	function isIdentifier(
	init: TSESTree.Expression,
	...names: string[]
	): boolean {
	return (
	init.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier && names.includes(init.name)
	);
	}

It might be a nice good first issue PR 😄

[bradzacher]

Personally - I don't think there's much value in extracting two logical expressions into a utility function.

Eg

if (
  node.typeName.type === AST_NODE_TYPES.Identifier &&
  node.typeName.name === 'Array'
) {...}

// vs

if (
  isIdentifierWithName(
    node.typeName,
    'Array',
  )
) {...}

I don't think you gain anything in terms of conciseness or readability, and I think such an abstraction costs you more here as there's a function call involved.

So I'm personally a -1 for this.

Cc @typescript-eslint/triage-team

[Josh-Cena]

I'm -0.5, but I think isIdentifierWithName(node.typeName, ['Array', 'ReadonlyArray']) does look slightly more semantic than its expanded form. Still have no appetite for small utilities because most contributors aren't going to be aware of them and just write it again anyway.

[StyleShit]

I think it's nicer to read, but @Josh-Cena has a good point here. As a (fairly?) new contributor, I'm not aware of some utils. I always try to find the right ones (which is kinda guessing my way between all those files & functions), but it's pretty difficult.
So now I'm not sure that this change will be useful other than having a (subjectively) nicer code in some places...

[Josh-Cena]

There doesn't seem to be enough interest in this.