Add new rule no-implicit-service-injection-argument

[bmish]

Fixes #195.

---

import Component from '@ember/component';
import { inject as service } from '@ember/service';
export default class Page extends Component {
  @service() serviceName; // Bad

  @service('service-name') serviceName; // Good
  @service('serviceName') serviceName; // Good
}

[bmish]

@rwjblue is this the right justification for this rule?

[bmish]

@runspired thoughts?

[runspired]

It's generally the right motivation, though in truth my feelings here have shifted with time.

With classic syntax, the implicit felt extra magical. With native class syntax and decorators, the service name being the key is a lot more clear (and understandable) I feel.

I think at this point what I want is for an error if the service name normalized from the key would be different from resolved name, I'm not sure if we can give the rule enough context for that or not. The key point is to enforce that it would work with the strict-resolver package if desired.

@scalvert or @stefanpenner may have good feedback here.

[bmish]

@runspired thanks for the context. I agree with your goal of ensuring the service injection property matches the resolved name to avoid the need for normalization. I'm thinking of proceeding with this plan:

1. Merge no-implicit-service-injection-argument as-is, always requiring the service injection argument. This would be intended as an optional (non-recommended) rule for people who prefer this style.
   • In the future, we could potentially make it smarter/configurable about when to require the service injection argument.
2. Create a new rule require-normalized-service-injections (or similar name) which would both validate that the service being injected actually exists, and that the name it's injected with matches its resolved name (so that it works with ember-strict-resolver). This can be implemented once it's practical for the lint rule to understand the full service resolution logic (including how to find services in addons).

[bmish]

@rwjblue are both @service('service-name') and @service('serviceName') acceptable? Should we allow just one or both? And which one should we autofix to?

[bmish]

More discussion in: https://discord.com/channels/480462759797063690/485447409296736276/842127236198039593

[bmish]

I've updated the rule to autofix to the kebab-case service name (i.e. @service('service-name')) since kebab-case filenames are more common. In the future, once we can actually resolve services from inside the lint rule, we can make this autofixer use the actual resolved service name.

Also see this discussion: #1188 (comment)