feat(linter): promote no_map_spread rule from nursery to perf

[camc314]

This rule has been in nursery for 13 months, we have (hopefully) fixed all issues relating to it, so it should be ready to promote to performance

[camc314]

• feat(linter): promote constructor_super rule from nursery to correctness #16605
• feat(linter): promote no_map_spread rule from nursery to perf #16604 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

---

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.

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[camc314]

Merge activity

• Dec 8, 12:40 PM UTC: The merge label '0-merge' was detected. This PR will be added to the Graphite merge queue once it meets the requirements.
• Dec 8, 12:45 PM UTC: camc314 added this pull request to the Graphite merge queue.
• Dec 8, 12:50 PM UTC: Merged by the Graphite merge queue.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR promotes the no_map_spread linter rule from the nursery category to the performance category after 13 months of testing and stabilization. This rule identifies inefficient use of object and array spreads in map and flatMap calls.

• Updates the rule category from nursery to perf in the declare_oxc_lint! macro
• Removes the TODO comment about battle-testing the rule

---

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

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #16604 will not alter performance

_{Comparing c/12-08-feat_linter_promote_no_map_spread_rule_from_nursery_to_perf (eac240c) with main (75d489a)¹}

Summary

✅ 4 untouched
⏩ 41 skipped²

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (6b019ce) during the generation of this report, so 75d489a was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 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. ↩