feat(linter): support bind function case for compatibility with promise/no-return-wrap

[no-yan]

part of #4655

Summary

Logic has been added to handle bind functions, unifying the implementations of unicorn/no-useless-promise-resolve-reject and promise/no-return-wrap.
This enables detection of the following code:

foo().then((function() { return Promise.resolve(4) }).bind(this))

Merging this PR will allow this rule to pass all test cases of promise/no-return-wrap without options. Additionally, merging #7274 will ensure that all test cases are passed.

[graphite-app]

Your org has enabled the Graphite merge queue for merging into main

Add the label “0-merge” to the PR and Graphite will automatically add it to the merge queue when it’s ready to merge. Or use the label “hotfix” to add to the merge queue as a hot fix.

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

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #7232 will not alter performance

_{Comparing no-yan:feat/no-return-wrap (4d37d31) with main (10cdce9)}

Summary

✅ 30 untouched benchmarks

[camc314]

is this the same as

oxc/crates/oxc_linter/src/rules/unicorn/no_useless_promise_resolve_reject.rs

Lines 32 to 55 in 0ac420d

	declare_oxc_lint!(
	/// ### What it does
	///
	/// Disallows returning values wrapped in `Promise.resolve` or `Promise.reject` in an async function or a `Promise#then`/`catch`/`finally` callback.
	///
	/// ### Why is this bad?
	///
	/// Wrapping a return value in `Promise.resolve` in an async function or a `Promise#then`/`catch`/`finally` callback is unnecessary as all return values in async functions and promise callback functions are already wrapped in a `Promise`. Similarly, returning an error wrapped in `Promise.reject` is equivalent to simply `throw`ing the error. This is the same for `yield`ing in async generators as well.
	///
	/// ### Examples
	///
	/// Examples of **incorrect** code for this rule:
	/// ```javascript
	/// async () => Promise.resolve(bar);
	/// ```
	///
	/// Examples of **correct** code for this rule:
	/// ```javascript
	/// async () => bar;
	/// ```
	NoUselessPromiseResolveReject,
	pedantic,
	fix
	);

?

[no-yan]

is this the same as no_useless_promise_resolve_reject.rs?

Good point!
I’ll migrate the test cases to the unicorn rule tomorrow and check if everything works as expected.
Since this rule includes an option to allow reject, we may need to add a setting on the unicorn side to unify the implementation.

[camc314]

thank you!