More test cases I have in mind:

1. this.foo = this.foo

2. setTimeout(() => this.foo = foo, 0)

3. bitwise/shifting operators?

declare const key: 'foo';

class Foo {
  constructor(private foo: string) {
    this[key] = foo;
  }
}

setTimeout(() => this.foo = foo, 0)

That's covered enough by the (() => {})() IMO. This just generally needs to check a call expression.

bitwise/shifting operators`

I think we're fine with the existing set of operators. They're similar enough in the AST that we don't need to be exhaustive.

declare const key: 'foo'

Covered by declare const name: string IMO

[Docs] To mention: if you don't use parameter properties, you can ignore this rule.

[Docs] This explanation is pretty sparse. We've been trying to flesh out our docs to be more useful. How about linking to the TypeScript docs? https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/classes.html#parameter-properties

[Style] No need to explicitly declare those type arguments ✨

[Style] TIL three existing rules declare this explicitly ... but they don't need to:

setTimeout(() => this.foo = foo, 0)

That's covered enough by the (() => {})() IMO. This just generally needs to check a call expression.

bitwise/shifting operators`

I think we're fine with the existing set of operators. They're similar enough in the AST that we don't need to be exhaustive.

declare const key: 'foo'

Covered by declare const name: string IMO

Is this true? I'm not able to get it to fix my code, and I don't see where a fixer is passed to context.report.

Aha! You're right - this was an oversight. eslint/eslint#18008 would have caught it.

Are you up for filing an issue and/or sending a PR @dasa? It'd be a great contribution 😁