fix(linter/prefer-number-properties): get fixer to replace entire call expr

[camc314]

when this fix interacts with other fixes, it can cause invalid final syntax to be produced.

By replacing the entire call expression, we solve this problem

[camc314]

• fix(linter/prefer-number-properties): get fixer to replace entire call expr #15979 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

• 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
• hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes an issue where the prefer-number-properties linter rule's autofix could produce invalid syntax when interacting with other fixes. The fix changes the approach from replacing only the object part of a member expression to replacing the entire call expression in one atomic operation.

Key Changes

• Modified the fixer for member expression calls (e.g., global.parseFloat()) to replace the entire call expression instead of just the object
• Added logic to capture type arguments if present
• Changed from partial replacement to full expression replacement to avoid conflicts with other fixes

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #15979 will not alter performance

_{Comparing c/11-23-fix_linter_prefer-number-properties_get_fixer_to_replace_entire_call_expr (81f5360) with main (54e8799)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (81f5360) during the generation of this report, so 54e8799 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 41 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[graphite-app]

Merge activity

• Nov 23, 3:04 AM UTC: camc314 added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Nov 23, 3:09 AM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.

[fisker]

Hello @camc314 , do you mind share which rule causes conflicts? Does the original Unicorn rule need fix? In unicorn we have a utility for such purpose. https://github.com/sindresorhus/eslint-plugin-unicorn/blob/main/rules/fix/extend-fix-range.js

[camc314]

yes of course:

our ecosystem CI caught:

Input:

const realMode = (n: any) => {
    return n & parseInt("07777", 8);
};

Being fixed into:

const realMode = (n: any) => {
    return n & Number.0o07777;
};

I think it was a combindation of the unicorn/prefer-number-propertes rule and eslint/prefer-numeric-literals

  × eslint(prefer-numeric-literals): Use octal literals instead of parseInt().
   ╭─[index.ts:2:14]
 1 │ const _realMode = (n: any) => {
 2 │   return n & parseInt("07777", 8);
   ·              ────────────────────
 3 │ };
   ╰────
  help: Replace `parseInt("07777", 8)` with `0o07777`.

  × eslint-plugin-unicorn(prefer-number-properties): Use `Number.parseInt` instead of the global `parseInt`
   ╭─[index.ts:2:14]
 1 │ const _realMode = (n: any) => {
 2 │   return n & parseInt("07777", 8);
   ·              ────────
 3 │ };
   ╰────
  help: Replace it with `Number.parseInt`

Since the spans our fixers introduced didn't overlap, the fixer applied both fixes, causing the invalid syntax, as each fix didn't know about the other.

Does the original Unicorn rule need fix?

I tested eslint, with unicorn plugin, and I don't think so. it gets fixed correctly, and produces the correct syntax (parseInt call is droped, just leaving behind 0o0_7777 )

[fisker]

Thank you!

the spans our fixers introduced didn't overlap

Maybe because Unicorn uses replace parseInt -> Number.parseInt that overlaps.