Enhancement: [prefer-nullish-coalescing] should ignore Boolean constructor

[Mister-Hope]

Enhancement: [prefer-nullish-coalescing] should ignore Boolean constructor

[bradzacher]

and !(/* codes */) should also be checked

The rule will ignore the not operator if its in the context of a conditional test. Otherwise it will intentionally ignore it.
I firmly disagree that this should apply to a general "not" expression across the codebase.

---

As for the Boolean constructor - I can see an argument for it. People have asked for it in other rules.

Currently none of our rules consider it as a boolean/conditional context - usually intentionally so because it doesn't align with the rule's intent. In this instance I can see the draw behind it as a general-purpose opt-out from the rule's checks. Probably good value as another option.

[Mister-Hope]

Yes, for the not operator, we can omit it as we can definitely use a not operator on a boolean constructor to bypass it.

Thanks for supporting this request, As is really annoying that multiple bugs are introduced in my repo by simply turning on this rule and use the auto fix future

[Mister-Hope]

@bradzacher Still need a further confirm, I notice you renamed this as enhancement, but I refuse for this, as the auto-fix has introduce false positive into codes.

I would rather treat this as a fix, and I believe the new option should be default on. We should be extremely careful that an auto fix can introduce false positive

[bradzacher]

The rule intentionally did not treat Boolean as a conditional context. It is not a bug that it did not.

Adding support to treat it as a special case is a new feature and likely will be behind its own option.

Based on anecdotal experience your codebase's treatment is a rarer case.

Regardless - the tagging doesn't matter - that really just determines if it is a patch or a minor release when it merges. It doesn't change the priority - either way this will be waiting for a community member to action it.