chore: add Svelte 5 docs for prefer-destructured-store-props rule

[baseballyama]

No description provided.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 2b69410

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[pkg-pr-new]

Open in Stackblitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/eslint-plugin-svelte@1034

commit: 2b69410

[marekdedic]

Why this? You can still use stores with runes?

[baseballyama]

Does the performance differ depending on whether the GOOD or BAD syntax is used when Svelte 5 is run in runes mode?

<script>
  /* eslint svelte/prefer-destructured-store-props: "error" */
  import store from './store.js';
  $: ({ foo } = $store);
</script>

<!-- ✓ GOOD -->
{foo}

<!-- ✗ BAD -->
{$store.foo}

Also, since the $ syntax cannot be used in Svelte 5’s runes mode, wouldn’t it be difficult to rewrite to a GOOD form even if this rule reports something?

[marekdedic]

See here, you can use the auto-subscription feature even with runes:
https://svelte.dev/playground/c63358bff2764b158ee7e1f76987cbed?version=5.19.0

As to the efficiency I can't say (I don't know enough of store internals), but if the rule doesn't make sense anymore, it should be disable on Svelte irrespective of whether runes are turned on, right?

[baseballyama]

Further investigation confirmed that using code like the following for stores in Svelte 5 does provide better performance:

let foo = $derived($store.foo)

[baseballyama]

So I updated the docs instead of changing the config.

[ota-meshi]

LGTM! Thank you!