feat(eslint-plugin): [no-base-to-string] add checkArrayJoin option

[yeonjuan]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes [no-base-to-string] add option to prevent usage of Array .join on non-toString things #3388
• That issue was marked as accepting prs
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @yeonjuan!

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	c79b0cc
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/67336f2543f33d0008444e39
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-10287--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 98 (🔴 down 1 from production) Accessibility: 100 (no change from production) Best Practices: 92 (no change from production) SEO: 98 (no change from production) PWA: 80 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit c79b0cc. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution

---

🟥 Failed Commands
nx run integration-tests:test

✅ Successfully ran 31 targets

• nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false
• nx test eslint-plugin
• nx test typescript-eslint --coverage=false
• nx test utils --coverage=false
• nx run types:build
• nx test visitor-keys
• nx run-many --target=build --exclude website --exclude website-eslint
• nx test typescript-eslint
• nx test type-utils
• nx test utils
• nx run-many --target=clean
• nx test typescript-estree
• nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types --coverage=false
• nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• nx test scope-manager
• nx test parser --coverage=false
• nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• nx test rule-tester --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=lint --exclude eslint-plugin
• nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types
• nx test rule-tester
• nx test parser
• nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude=website --exclude=website-eslint
• nx run-many --target=typecheck
• nx test ast-spec
• nx generate-configs

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.61%. Comparing base (c13b6b4) to head (c79b0cc).
Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10287      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.56%   86.61%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         431      432       +1     
  Lines       15188    15176      -12     
  Branches     4418     4428      +10     
==========================================
- Hits        13148    13144       -4     
+ Misses       1683     1675       -8     
  Partials      357      357              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	86.61% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...kages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-base-to-string.ts	96.38% <100.00%> (+0.67%)	⬆️

... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes

[Josh-Cena]

IMO: this doesn't have to be an option. I can't think of a case where someone checks all other cases but wants to allow join on purpose.

[kirkwaiblinger]

should this message have the certainty too?

Suggested change

	"Using `join()` for {{name}} use Object's default stringification format ('[object Object]') when stringified.",
	"Using `join()` for {{name}} {{certainty}} use Object's default stringification format ('[object Object]') when stringified.",

Otherwise "Using join() for {} use..." is ungrammatical and should be fixed?

Suggested change

	"Using `join()` for {{name}} use Object's default stringification format ('[object Object]') when stringified.",
	"Using `join()` for {{name}} uses Object's default stringification format ('[object Object]') when stringified.",

[kirkwaiblinger]

(test) could you add maybe one or two tests around arrays that aren't literals (eg passed in as parameters) as well as as generic parameters?

[kirkwaiblinger]

wondering if we need getConstrainedTypeAtLocation here in order to handle generics nicely?

[yeonjuan]

@Josh-Cena @kirkwaiblinger Thank you for your review. I've fixed it.