Before You File a Proposal Please Confirm You Have Done The Following...

• I havesearched for related issues and found none that match my proposal.
• I have searched thecurrent rule list and found no rules that match my proposal.
• I haveread the FAQ and my problem is not listed.

My proposal is suitable for this project

• I believe my proposal would be useful to the broader TypeScript community (meaning it is not a niche proposal).

Link to the rule's documentation

https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/ban-types/

Description

Filing this issue as a followup/superset of the more targeted#8697. As ofmicrosoft/TypeScript#49119, TypeScript has much better handling of{} semantics than it did when theban-types default options were written.@RyanCavanaugh -the dev lead for TypeScript- called out inmicrosoft/TypeScript#57735 (comment) that as it stands today,{ } is a valid type with a valid meaning in TypeScript.

Proposal: let's re-think the default options inban-types to agree with the way TypeScript now works?

My first proposal would be, roughly...

• Remove any bans of{} altogether, including inrecommended andstrict
• Add a ban onNonNullable<unknown> that suggests switching to{}

...but I'd want to hear from@bradzacher and@RyanCavanaugh on whether that satisfies the intents of both TypeScript andban-types.

Fail

letnonNullish:Object;

Pass

letnonNullish:{};

Additional Info

For clarity, the intent of the two issues I'm filing are:

• This one: holistically rethinkingban-types, which might take some time
• Enhancement: [ban-types] Allow {} in the recommended config #8697: spot improving therecommended experience, which can land first

If this issue is resolved before#8697, that's great too.