fix(no_invalid_regexp): expand invalid case

[Colt45s]

Fixes #1269

To understand the issue better, I first modified the code to include debug output for inspecting the AST. Specifically, I added the following debug statement to the handle_call_or_new_expr function:

fn handle_call_or_new_expr(
  &mut self,
  callee: &Expr,
  args: &[ExprOrSpread],
  range: SourceRange,
) {
+  println!("{:?}", callee);
+  println!("{:?}", args);

  if let Expr::Ident(ident) = callee {
    if ident.sym != *"RegExp" || args.is_empty() {
      return;
    }
    if let Some(pattern) = &check_expr_for_string_literal(&args[0].expr) {
      if args.len() > 1 {
        if let Some(flags) = &check_expr_for_string_literal(&args[1].expr) {
          self.check_regex(pattern, flags, range);
          return;
        }
      }
      self.check_regex(pattern, "", range);
    }
  }
}

By examining the printed AST output, I thought checking for nested AST might be needed.

I ran lint on the following code snippet.

((_) => [
  /+/,
  RegExp("+"),
  new RegExp("+"),
])([
  /+/,
  RegExp("+"),
  new RegExp("+"),
]);

println output:

// callee
Paren(ParenExpr { span: 1623..1676#0, expr: Arrow(ArrowExpr { span: 1624..1675#0, params: [Ident(BindingIdent { id: Ident { span: 1625..1626#3, sym: "_", optional: false }, type_ann: None })], body: Expr(Array(ArrayLit { span: 1631..1675#0, elems: [Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Regex(Regex { span: 1635..1638#0, exp: "+", flags: "" })) }), Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Call(CallExpr { span: 1642..1653#0, callee: Expr(Ident(Ident { span: 1642..1648#1, sym: "RegExp", optional: false })), args: [ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Str(Str { span: 1649..1652#0, value: "+", raw: Some("\"+\"") })) }], type_args: None }) }), Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: New(NewExpr { span: 1657..1672#0, callee: Ident(Ident { span: 1661..1667#1, sym: "RegExp", optional: false }), args: Some([ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Str(Str { span: 1668..1671#0, value: "+", raw: Some("\"+\"") })) }]), type_args: None }) })] })), is_async: false, is_generator: false, type_params: None, return_type: None }) })

// args
[ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Array(ArrayLit { span: 1677..1721#0, elems: [Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Regex(Regex { span: 1681..1684#0, exp: "+", flags: "" })) }), Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Call(CallExpr { span: 1688..1699#0, callee: Expr(Ident(Ident { span: 1688..1694#1, sym: "RegExp", optional: false })), args: [ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Str(Str { span: 1695..1698#0, value: "+", raw: Some("\"+\"") })) }], type_args: None }) }), Some(ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: New(NewExpr { span: 1703..1718#0, callee: Ident(Ident { span: 1707..1713#1, sym: "RegExp", optional: false }), args: Some([ExprOrSpread { spread: None, expr: Lit(Str(Str { span: 1714..1717#0, value: "+", raw: Some("\"+\"") })) }]), type_args: None }) })] }) }]

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[0f-0b]

The fix doesn't cover these cases.

class C extends RegExp {
  constructor() {
    super(/+/); // there should be warnings on this line…
  }
}

new C();
new function () {
  return /+/; // …and on this line.
};

[Colt45s]

Thank you! I'll try 😃

[Colt45s]

Fixed.

[Colt45s]

Can anyone review this？