docs: fix no-unnecessary-boolean-literal-compare example

[heitorlisboa]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes Docs: wrong example in no-unnecessary-boolean-literal-compare #8980
• That issue was marked as accepting prs (intentionally skipped because it's a small documentation fix for something that was already proved to be wrong)
• Steps in Contributing were taken

Overview

Add missing !( ... ) around comparison cases in example for the allowComparingNullableBooleansToFalse option of the no-unnecessary-boolean-literal-compare docs.

[typescript-eslint]

Thanks for the PR, @heitorlisboa!

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.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for typescript-eslint ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f9055c9
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/typescript-eslint/deploys/662c18880feede0008068cb1
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-8981--typescript-eslint.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 98 (🟢 up 5 from production) Accessibility: 100 (no change from production) Best Practices: 92 (no change from production) SEO: 98 (no change from production) PWA: 80 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[nx-cloud]

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit f9055c9. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution

---

✅ Successfully ran 31 targets

• nx test eslint-plugin --coverage=false
• nx test eslint-plugin
• nx test typescript-estree --coverage=false
• nx run types:build
• nx test visitor-keys --coverage=false
• nx test utils --coverage=false
• nx run repo-tools:postinstall-script
• nx test type-utils --coverage=false
• nx test scope-manager --coverage=false
• nx test typescript-eslint --coverage=false
• nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types --coverage=false
• nx test repo-tools --coverage=false
• nx test parser --coverage=false
• nx test eslint-plugin-internal --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=lint --parallel --exclude eslint-plugin
• nx test visitor-keys
• nx test utils
• nx test type-utils
• nx test typescript-eslint
• nx test scope-manager
• nx test typescript-estree
• nx test repo-tools
• nx test rule-schema-to-typescript-types
• nx test eslint-plugin-internal
• nx test parser
• nx test ast-spec
• nx test ast-spec --coverage=false
• nx run-many --target=build --parallel --exclude=website --exclude=website-eslint
• nx run-many --target=typecheck --parallel
• nx run integration-tests:test
• nx run repo-tools:generate-configs

---

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

[kirkwaiblinger]

@heitorlisboa

Good eyes! Thanks for sending this.

On the CI failure: There's a gap in our docs right now about how to update the snapshots of the code samples (filed #8997); long story short, would you mind running yarn test -- -u in order to update the snapshots? Thanks!

[kirkwaiblinger]

(optional)

Question - is there any reason for these to negate the "Incorrect" code rather than the "Correct" code here? It feels weird to me to have !inputExpression => !outputExpression when inputExpression => outputExpression would be much simpler. (This isn't a loaded question; I just genuinely can't think of a reason. I note that the chart below does it that way, too, which you've probably followed for consistency, but... should we just change it there too?)

Either way, though, your change fixes it from incorrect to correct, following the existing pattern, so it's totally optional if you even want to think about this comment or not! 🙂

[heitorlisboa]

You're right. I only did it this way for consistency, but I agree that negating the "Incorrect" code makes it harder to understand.

I'm down to update the example and the fixer chart to use simpler expressions. Should I go ahead with it? If you're cool with it, I'll update the snapshots (as you mentioned in your previous comment) once I've made the changes.

[kirkwaiblinger]

Great, go for it! 🚀🚀

[heitorlisboa]

Done! 😄

[kirkwaiblinger]

Love it! Thanks for doing this, and congrats on your first time contributing to typescript-eslint! ❤️

Marking as 1 approval, and I expect it will get merged in as soon as another team member is able to look at it!

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

🚀 +1, thanks!