fix(eslint-plugin): [prefer-includes] ignore option chaining before indexOfs

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Fixes #3341

I was on the fence of whether to just remove the fixer for ?.indexOf instead, but went with removing it altogether because of the subtle behavior differences:

Original	x = undefined	x = ""	x = "y"
x?.indexOf("y") === -1	false	true	false
!x?.includes("y")	true ❌	true	false
x?.indexOf("y") !== -1	true	false	true
x?.includes("y")	undefined ❌	false	true

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @JoshuaKGoldberg!

typescript-eslint is a 100% community driven project, and we are incredibly grateful that you are contributing to that community.

The core maintainers work on this in their personal time, so please understand that it may not be possible for them to review your work immediately.

Thanks again!

---

🙏 Please, if you or your company is finding typescript-eslint valuable, help us sustain the project by sponsoring it transparently on https://opencollective.com/typescript-eslint. As a thank you, your profile/company logo will be added to our main README which receives thousands of unique visitors per day.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3432 (7041d15) into master (b814e63) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 92.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3432      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.66%   92.65%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         324      324              
  Lines       11188    11191       +3     
  Branches     3157     3158       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        10367    10369       +2     
  Misses        365      365              
- Partials      456      457       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittest	92.65% <92.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ackages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/prefer-includes.ts	97.87% <92.00%> (-1.03%)	⬇️

[bradzacher]

Question: Do we want to keep the reporting but remove the fixer only?

I.e. the user has to evaluate and fix the code as required

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

This addOptional wrapper was hiding the test cases from being checked by Prettier... although I could keep it in and remove the output field, it does feel weird to me to auto-generate them this way when the only difference between the two is checking callNode.parent.parent vs. callNode.parent?

[bradzacher]

this was just my lazy way of covering all the cases 😅

[bradzacher]

LGTM - thanks for fixing this!

[bradzacher]

this was just my lazy way of covering all the cases 😅