fix(eslint-plugin): [no-extra-parens] false positive when used with satisfies keyword

[fcorsair]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Bug: [no-extra-parens] False positive when used with satisfies keyword #7017
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

Added new condition inside MemberExpression type rule for SatisfiesExpression node type, added new simple test.

This is my first PR, be kind 😄 ❤️

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @fcorsair!

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	be84387
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/645ecd220687e60008c3a4b6
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-7026--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.

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit be84387. 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 typescript-estree
• Node 18 - nx test visitor-keys
• Node 14 - nx test utils --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude website
• nx run-many --target=lint --parallel
• nx run-many --target=typecheck --parallel
• Node 14 - nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test utils
• Node 14 - nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test parser
• Node 14 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude website
• Node 14 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• Node 14 - nx test parser --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test ast-spec
• Node 14 - nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• Node 18 - nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• Node 18 - nx test scope-manager
• Node 18 - nx test eslint-plugin-tslint

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

A good start, thanks for sending this in! 🙌

Requesting changes for increased test coverage. This stuff can get tricky! I'd suggest seeing the discussion in #6885 to check if there's some shared logic that should be updated. I can review more deeply once there are more test cases.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7026 (be84387) into main (a6f23a2) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7026   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.38%   87.38%           
=======================================
  Files         386      386           
  Lines       13193    13195    +2     
  Branches     3867     3868    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        11529    11531    +2     
  Misses       1298     1298           
  Partials      366      366           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	87.38% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ackages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-extra-parens.ts	91.66% <100.00%> (+0.20%)	⬆️

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Recreating a new thread from https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/pull/7026/files#r1192868544: shouldn't this still cause a rule report?

const a = ((['a', 'b'] satisfies A[])).includes('a');

Note the extra parenthesis around the (['a', 'b'] satisfies A[]).

[fcorsair]

sure, this case definitely deserves a test

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Sorry if I was unclear on this one - the code looks nice in general, but I think there's a missing test case that fails locally for me?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Ping @fcorsair, is this still something you have time & interest for?

[fcorsair]

Ping @fcorsair, is this still something you have time & interest for?

yes, I would like to complete this PR, I've been a little busy in the last months

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Closing this PR as it's been stale for ~6 weeks without activity. Feel free to reopen @fcorsair if you have time - but no worries if not! If anybody wants to drive it forward, please do post your own PR - and if you use this as a start, consider adding Co-authored-by: @fcorsair at the end of your PR description. Thanks! 😊

[fcorsair]

Hi @JoshuaKGoldberg I don’t get from the issue discussion if the problem should be now fixed from latest eslint versions or still not. Do you confirm it?

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if there's a bug in typescript-eslint with an equivalent that was fixed in ESLint core we can always take an issue.

[fcorsair]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if there's a bug in typescript-eslint with an equivalent that was fixed in ESLint core we can always take an issue.

Ok now I get it, it’s fixed in eslint only, still bugged in ts-eslint