Rule proposal: `no-reduce-spread`

Using spread inside a reduce call can turn a O(n) algorithm into O(n**2). See https://www.richsnapp.com/article/2019/06-09-reduce-spread-anti-pattern

Fail

const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => ({
  ...acc,
  [item.name]: item.value,
}, {});

Pass

const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => {
  acc[item.name] = item.value;
  return acc;
}, {})

[fregante]

Isn’t this already covered by no-reduce? Both examples are IMHO pretty bad compared to a plain loop:

const result = {};
for (const {name, value} of items) {
  result[name] = value;
}

[bschlenk]

Would that rule be smart enough to recognize when the item would need to be mapped? This failure example wouldn’t translate directly without mapping the object to an array first

const result = Object.fromEntries(items.map(item => [item.name, item.value]));