feat: add new rule require-test-case-name

[michaelfaith]

This change adds a new rule to require name be present in test cases under certain conditions. This rule aims to ensure test suites are producing logs in a form that make it easy to identify failing test, when they happen. For thoroughly tested rules, it's not uncommon to have the same code across multiple test cases, with only options or settings differing between them. Requiring these test cases to have a name helps ensure the test output is meaningful and distinct.

Closes #544

[michaelfaith]

Rule's already working. 😆

Would you rather i address these in the same change, or as a separate change?

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces a new ESLint rule test-case-name-property that requires test cases to include a name property under configurable conditions. The rule helps ensure test output is meaningful and distinct, particularly when multiple test cases share the same code but differ in options or settings.

Key changes:

• Adds rule implementation with three configuration modes: always, objects, and objects-with-config (default)
• Includes comprehensive test coverage for all configuration modes
• Updates plugin exports and documentation

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
lib/rules/test-case-name-property.ts	Implements the core rule logic with three violation filters and message types
tests/lib/rules/test-case-name-property.ts	Provides extensive test coverage for all rule configuration modes
lib/index.ts	Registers the new rule in the plugin's rule collection
docs/rules/test-case-name-property.md	Documents rule purpose, options, and usage examples
README.md	Adds rule to the plugin's rule listing table

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[aladdin-add]

Would you rather i address these in the same change, or as a separate change?

I prefer in this PR, but both are fine for me.

[michaelfaith]

I'm having second thoughts about the rule name. What do you think about require-test-case-name instead of test-case-name-property? That seems more precise to me.

[aladdin-add]

I'm having second thoughts about the rule name. What do you think about require-test-case-name instead of test-case-name-property? That seems more precise to me.

👍 It better illustrates the functionality of this rule.

[michaelfaith]

@aladdin-add That should be all of the new violations addressed.

[aladdin-add]

👍 Looks great! just a few questions/minor suggestions.

Leaving it open 2~3 days for others to review.