eslint missing-make-observable-rule support for namespaces and fix imports

[WearyMonkey]

Improves the missing-make-observable-rule to:

• Support namespace imports e.g. @mobx.observable.ref
• Insert imports if required
• Adds a super call on classes that extend React.Component
• Does not generate a constructor when extending an unknown class

For example:

import * as mobx from 'mobx';

class C {
   @mobx.observable.ref c = 1;
}

Will be fixed to:

import * as mobx from 'mobx';

class C {
  constructor() {
    mobx.makeObservable(this)
  }

   @mobx.observable.ref c = 1;
}

And

import { observable } from 'mobx';

class C {
   @observable.ref c = 1;
}

Will be fixed to:

import { observable, makeObservable  } from 'mobx';

class C {
  constructor() {
    makeObservable(this)
  }

   @observable.ref c = 1;
}

And

class C extends React.Component<{ foo: string }> {
   @observable.ref c = 1;
}

Will be fixed to:

class C extends React.Component<{ foo: string }> {
    constructor(props: { foo: string }) {
       super(props);
       makeObservable(this);
    }

   @observable.ref c = 1;
}

Code change checklist

• Added/updated unit tests
• Updated /docs. For new functionality, at least API.md should be updated
• Verified that there is no significant performance drop (yarn mobx test:performance)

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 0fe7e04

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[iChenLei]

ci failed, bro

[urugator]

Doesn't matter, create constructor without super and let another eslint rule handle missing super.
I think that handling React component specifically as part of this rule is unnecessary as well, but I am ok with it.