We need check this.

`\u0040`
'@'
String.raw`\u0040`
'\\u0040'

Maybe check .cooked === .raw?

Sorry, I didn't get this.

The following tests already work:

valid: [
  'a = String.raw`\\u0040`'
]

invalid: [
  'a = String.raw`\u0040`'
]

Okay, I thought we suggest `\u0040` over String.raw`\u0040`, I must made a mistake.

Anyway, do you think we can check .cooked === .raw instead of checking contains \?

Anyway, do you think we can check .cooked === .raw instead of checking contains \?

Yeah, we can, updated in 2eb20bf.

The above update, surfaced an interesting issue.

So, after this update, I'm getting a parsing error in the puppeteer codebase at the following line:
https://github.com/puppeteer/puppeteer/blob/832831d21c42ff542300c194c2b4f07274d8f82f/test/src/queryhandler.spec.ts#L373

Here's a simple reproduction of the same:

Source code:

let a = "\\38";

This correctly gets fixed to:

let a = String.raw`\38`;

However, the above String.raw`\38` expression fails with the typescript parser, throwing the following error:

Parsing error: Octal escape sequences are not allowed. Use the syntax '\x03'.

The includes(BACKSLASH) check wasn’t failing because it allowed the function to exit early when a backslash was detected in the raw value.

But, with the .cooked === .raw check, it fails because both cooked and raw values here are the same ('\\38'), causing the check to pass.
cooked value can't be '\38' because that '\38' is syntactically incorrect, maybe because of this the parser keeps the cooked value same as raw.

value: { cooked: '\\38', raw: '\\38' }

This works fine with the babel parser because looks like it sets the cooked value to null in cases like these.

value: { raw: '\\38', cooked: null }

So, I think it's better to keep the includes(BACKSLASH) check because it operates on the raw value, which seems to be a better choice in this case.

LMK if this makes sense, I'll add the let a = String.raw`\38`; test with the typescript parser.

This is bug in typescript-eslint, can you report to them? I can do it if you don't want to.

I'd appreciate if you could, I'm fairly new to parsers, so I might not be able to explain it clearly.

No problem.

typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint#11353

Please add a test for

function foo() {
	return String.raw
			// Comment
			``
}

Comments like these weren't being preserved, had to update the implementation a bit, refer cc0a128.

The comment is not the point, in this case, we can't simply remove String.raw need add parenthesis after return.

Ideally, it should fix to

function foo() {
	return (
			// Comment
			``)
}

There are similar cases exists, please search other rules.

Search addParenthesizesToReturnOrThrowExpression

Gotcha, apologies for the confusion.

This is incorrect, since tag can be parenthesis.

((String.raw))``

You can use removeParentheses