fix(ast/estree): Add TSEnumBody to TSEnumDeclaration.body

[leaysgur]

Part of #9705

This PR fixes AST structure of TSEnumDeclaration from:

{
  "type": "TSEnumDeclaration",
  "id": { /* ... */ },
  "members": [
    {
      "type": "TSEnumMember",
      "id": { /* ... */ },
      "initializer": null
    }
  ],
  "const": false,
  "declare": false
}

to:

{
  "type": "TSEnumDeclaration",
  "id": { /* ... */ },
  "body": {
    "type": "TSEnumBody",
    "members": [
	    {
	      "type": "TSEnumMember",
          "id": { /* ... */ },
	      "initializer": null
	    }
	  ],
  },
  "const": false,
  "declare": false
}

https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/main/packages/ast-spec/src/declaration/TSEnumDeclaration/spec.ts
https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/main/packages/ast-spec/src/special/TSEnumBody/spec.ts

Historically, we had this node in the past, but it seems to have been deleted in #2509 .

[graphite-app]

How to use the Graphite Merge Queue

Add either label to this PR to merge it via the merge queue:

• 0-merge - adds this PR to the back of the merge queue
• hotfix - for urgent hot fixes, skip the queue and merge this PR next

You must have a Graphite account in order to use the merge queue. Sign up using this link.

An organization admin has enabled the Graphite Merge Queue in this repository.

Please do not merge from GitHub as this will restart CI on PRs being processed by the merge queue.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Instrumentation Performance Report

Merging #10017 will degrade performances by 3.74%

_{Comparing estree-tsenumbody (387527b) with main (bde73b5)}

Summary

⚡ 1 improvements
❌ 1 regressions
✅ 34 untouched benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
❌	formatter[antd.js]	7.6 ms	7.9 ms	-3.74%
⚡	formatter[typescript.js]	7.4 ms	7.2 ms	+3.52%

[leaysgur]

This change causes many tests to pass, but I've just realized that this implementation may not be sufficient...

I believe it might not work for code like this.

enum Foo        { A }
//       ^^^^^^^

I'm not sure how to handle these gaps in serialize step. Do we need to revive the TSEnumBody node in the Rust AST?

[overlookmotel]

This change causes many tests to pass, but I've just realized that this implementation may not be sufficient...

I believe it might not work for code like this.

enum Foo        { A }
//       ^^^^^^^

I'm not sure how to handle these gaps in serialize step. Do we need to revive the TSEnumBody node in the Rust AST?

Yes, we'll probably need to alter the Rust AST so it includes the Span we need.

But this PR already makes more tests pass, so let's get it merged, and we can then improve on it.

[leaysgur]

@overlookmotel Thanks for the review~! I think I've fixed your points.

Yes, we'll probably need to alter the Rust AST so it includes the Span we need.
But this PR already makes more tests pass, so let's get it merged, and we can then improve on it.

🫡 I will create another issue for this later. => #10087

[overlookmotel]

Thank you!