Add no-single-promise-in-promise-methods rule

[Clement398]

Fixes #2256

[sindresorhus]

Same feedback as in #2259

[fisker]

Should we add an option to skip Promise.allSettled()?

const [{reason: error, value}] = await Promise.allSettled([promise]);

can be useful to avoid try/catch.

[Clement398]

Same feedback as in #2259

It's corrected.

[Clement398]

Should we add an option to skip Promise.allSettled()?

const [{reason: error, value}] = await Promise.allSettled([promise]);

can be useful to avoid try/catch.

I hadn't thought of this scenario, in which case shouldn't we simply not apply this rule to the Promise.allSettled() method?

[fisker]

This will break

await Promise.all([(a, b)])

[Clement398]

It's corrected.

[fisker]

I don't know how you fix it, but it's incorrect. Please try not to force push, I can't see changes.

[Clement398]

I removed the fix when I limited the types by excluding SequenceExpression but I put it back.
Sorry about the push force.

[Clement398]

Should we add an option to skip Promise.allSettled()?

const [{reason: error, value}] = await Promise.allSettled([promise]);

can be useful to avoid try/catch.

I've excluded the allSettled method from this rule in order to take this usage into account.

[fisker]

Another edge case

-Promise.all([-1])

[fisker]

I don't think we can auto fix cases when it's not awaited.

const promise = Promise.all([somethingMaybeNotPromise])
await promise.catch(...)

call somethingMaybeNotPromise.catch will throw.

[Clement398]

Thank you @fisker for all these improvements.