feat(linter): implement vitest/prefer-called-times

[qinyuhang]

Ref: #4656

This PR implements vitest/prefer-called-times rule.

Test Plan

• All fail cases pass
• All pass cases pass
• All expect fix get fix suggestions
• No clippy warnings
• Code formatted with just fmt

[camc314]

This looks to be the same as https://github.com/Boshen/oxc/blob/fc96ee09189a3510078dd0d072a424affdb6dbc4/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/prefer_to_have_been_called_times.rs#L1, can we take the same approach as 477bb57 / #4956

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #17051 will not alter performance

_{Comparing qinyuhang:oxc_dev (d2bfbf5) with main (30fb206)}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped¹

Footnotes

1. 41 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[qinyuhang]

This looks to be the same as https://github.com/Boshen/oxc/blob/fc96ee09189a3510078dd0d072a424affdb6dbc4/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/prefer_to_have_been_called_times.rs#L1, can we take the same approach as 477bb57 / #4956

Yes, the two PRs share some code path. I think we could somehow extract the common functions.

[qinyuhang]

This looks to be the same as https://github.com/Boshen/oxc/blob/fc96ee09189a3510078dd0d072a424affdb6dbc4/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/jest/prefer_to_have_been_called_times.rs#L1, can we take the same approach as 477bb57 / #4956

Though the two implements share some common pattern and code path. I'm concerned about they actually check different syntax. Is it appropriate to mix them together?

jest/prefer-to-have-been-called-times checks expect(someVar.mock.calls).toHaveLength(someLength) and provider fix to expect(someVar.mock.calls).toHaveBeenCalled(someLength)

while vitest/prefer-called-times checks expect(someFunction).toBeCalledOnce() and provider fix to expect(someFunction).toBeCalled(1)

[camc314]

Ah thanks for checking, we can keep them separate