New rule: force `waitForElementToBeRemoved` when `waitFor` is used to wait for disappearance

[zaicevas]

We could have a new rule that reports waitFor in cases where waitForElementToBeRemoved could be used. Could be named prefer-waiting-for-disappearance or something similar.
From the implementational side, it'd probably make sense to look for RTL queries inside waitFor and some specific matchers, such as .not.toBeInTheDocument(), .toBeFalsy(), etc.

    // BAD:
    await waitFor(() =>
      expect(screen.queryByText("Loading")).not.toBeInTheDocument(),
    )

    // GOOD
    await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => screen.queryByText("Loading"))

I am also curious about the fact that if this rule is enabled, it doesn't make too much sense to have query* queries in waitFor, even when waiting for appearance. Hence, the rule could either report by default or have an option to report this case:

    await waitFor(() => expect(screen.queryByText("Loading")).toBeInTheDocument())

WDYT?

[Belco90]

This is an interesting one, few comments about it.

I think the list of "disappearance matchers" is already in the codebase, so we should aim to report that list.

I don't think the 2nd case you exposed would be in the scope of this rule. queryBy* + presence matcher is already reported by prefer-presence-queries, and reporting waitFor + presence matcher would fit better in prefer-find-by one.

[zaicevas]

I don't think the 2nd case you exposed would be in the scope of this rule. queryBy* + presence matcher is already reported by prefer-presence-queries

Fair point.

reporting waitFor + presence matcher would fit better in prefer-find-by one.

Makes sense! I created an issue for it #420

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.