no-new-object to allow argument

[brettz9]

What rule do you want to change?

no-new-object

Does this change cause the rule to produce more or fewer warnings?

Fewer warnings.

How will the change be implemented? (New option, new default behavior, etc.)?

New default behavior.

Please provide some example code that this change will affect:

new Object(BigInt('1n'))

What does the rule currently do for this code?

Reports an error.

What will the rule do after it's changed?

Not report anything.

Are you willing to submit a pull request to implement this change?

Yes.

As per the above example, there are uses for wrapping some items within a new Object() (or within the equivalent, Object(), but some prefer the style of requiring new in such cases, as per unicorn/new-for-builtins).

If it is thought that people will like to make this optional, I can modify to something like allowWithArguments.

[platinumazure]

This should definitely be optional. 😄

[mysticatea]

Out of curiosity, why do you want to use the wrapper objects?

[brettz9]

I've changed it to be optional and off-by-default (and switching the commit message from "Breaking" to "New").

My own need is merely for typeson-registry's ability to serialize/deserialize BigInt objects in case anyone uses them within the structured cloning algorithm. And we're using typeson-registry with IndexedDBShim to allow it properly store such objects. And I was motivated to do this primarily because the W3C tests include this syntax :)

But I think some may wish to use this for polyfilling or extending the prototype. Interestingly, Object() converts to a primitive's more closely corresponding object, e.g., BigInt, Number, Boolean, String, so it is not just for polyfilling/enhancing Object. In the case of BigInt, therefore, one could add special arithmetic methods on BigInt.prototype. For a dumb example:

BigInt.prototype.plusOne = function () {
    return this + 1n;
};

Object(1n).plusOne();

[mysticatea]

Because JS runtime does boxing automatically, so you don't need to wrap it by Object(). I.e., 1n.plusOne() works as expected.

[brettz9]

Btw, the reason I originally suggested the behavior as the default is because the only rationale given in the docs for avoiding new Object is that it is equivalent to the object literal, but in this case it isn't.

However, I understand people don't always want to allow such more obscure uses.

[brettz9]

Ah, ok, I see, thanks, @mysticatea . I've amended the docs to avoid mentioning that. But it is still possible to do such conversions. I've also seen Object() used to polyfill certain built-in methods, e.g., https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/find#Polyfill (as part of ToObject), though this seems pretty obscure here too--I am not sure what case this covers, however (it already seems to be an Object when it gets to that point, so maybe it is not needed in the polyfill).

[eslint-deprecated]

Unfortunately, it looks like there wasn't enough interest from the team
or community to implement this change. While we wish we'd be able to
accommodate everyone's requests, we do need to prioritize. We've found
that issues failing to reach accepted status after 21 days tend to
never be accepted, and as such, we close those issues.
This doesn't mean the idea isn't interesting or useful, just that it's
not something the team can commit to.

Thanks for contributing to ESLint and we appreciate your understanding.