[new rule] prefer .not.toHaveBeenCalled() over toHaveBeenCalledTimes(0)

[ge65cer]

// instead of
expect(testSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(0)

// prefer
expect(testSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled()

// unaffected
expect(testSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
expect(testSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalledTimes(5)

[G-Rath]

Could you please provide a description of what you'd like, including examples of correct and incorrect code that this rule would check? thanks!

[G-Rath]

I'm not sure if enough of a clear gain here to make it worth having a whole new rule for this (the failure message is very similar, and it could be more consistent depending on the surrounding code), given you could use no-restricted-syntax to enforce this using CallExpression[callee.property.name='toHaveBeenCalledTimes'][arguments.length=1][arguments.0.value=0] 🤔

[park-jemin]

Reviving this as I'm seeing a lot of areas of this happening within a codebase - would be nice to have an autofixable rule here instead of flagging restricted syntax.