fix (prefer-bigint-literals): fix add support for numbers/strings with operators

[baevm]

Fixes #2733, added support for BigInt('+1'), BigInt('-1'), BigInt(+1), BigInt(-1). Not sure about BigInt(!1) and BigInt(~1), looks like those also valid?

[fisker]

I opened #2733, because I think there are maybe people writes BigInt("-1"), but I don't think anyone would write BigInt(!1), it should be a mistake.

[fisker]

I didn't notice, this is a PR, not an issue. Sorry!

[fisker]

Can you add test for BigInt("++1")?

[fisker]

And BigInt("+ 1")

[fisker]

BigInt(" -1 ") 

BigInt(" +1 ") 

[baevm]

added tests:
BigInt("++1") - valid
BigInt("+ 1") - valid

BigInt(" -1 ") - invalid
BigInt(" +1 ") - invalid with suggestion

[fisker]

Need test -BigInt(-1) and -BigInt("-1"), I think they will fail.

[fisker]

There can also ASI issue since the fixed code inserts -.

foo // <-- no semicolon here BigInt("-1") 

[fisker]

Unlike "-1", "+1" probably a mistake, let's use suggestion instead of autofix. Same for UnaryExpression

[baevm]

replaced with suggestion, also fixed logic for cases with spaces BigInt(" +1 ")

[baevm]

Need test -BigInt(-1) and -BigInt("-1"), I think they will fail.

fixed, added tests

There can also ASI issue since the fixed code inserts -.

foo // <-- no semicolon here BigInt("-1") 

not sure about this, but i think it is working fine? added test for this

[fisker]

This should be

foo ;-1n 

[fisker]

[fisker]

There is a needsSemicolon utility for it.

[fisker]

Instead of 1n, better fix to -(-1n)

[fisker]

Another test 2n - BigInt("-1")