chore: fix JavaScript lint errors

[Abhist17]

Resolves #15228.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Fixes the JavaScript lint failure reported in Fix JavaScript lint errors #15228: n/no-unsupported-features/es-builtins flags the bare Symbol.toPrimitive reference in lib/node_modules/@stdlib/symbol/to-primitive/test/test.js because the package's configured engines range is >=0.12.18 (pre-ES6). The access is already environment-safe — the test only runs the assertion when opts.skip (from hasToPrimitiveSymbolSupport()) is false — so this is a lint false positive, not a runtime bug.
• Suppresses it with an inline eslint-disable-line n/no-unsupported-features/es-builtins comment on that line, matching the existing precedent for the same rule and the same "already feature-gated" scenario in utils/property-descriptors/test/test.builtin.js and assert/is-number/test/test.object.js.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• resolves Fix JavaScript lint errors #15228

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

This PR was written by Claude Code. It located the failing line from the CI log in #15228, found the existing eslint-disable-line n/no-unsupported-features/es-builtins precedent elsewhere in the codebase for the identical rule/scenario, and applied the same one-line fix.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

👋 Hi there! 👋

And thank you for opening your first pull request! We will review it shortly. 🏃 💨

Getting Started

• Please read our contributing guidelines if you haven't already.
• For development guidance, refer to the development guide.

Next Steps

1. A project maintainer will approve GitHub Actions workflows for your PR.
2. All CI checks must pass before your submission can be fully reviewed.
3. You'll need to address any failures in linting or unit tests.

Running Tests Locally

You can use make to run any of the CI commands locally from the root directory of the stdlib repository:

# Run tests for all packages in the math namespace:
make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/.*"

# Run benchmarks for a specific package:
make benchmark BENCHMARKS_FILTER=".*/@stdlib/math/base/special/sin/.*"

If you haven't heard back from us within two weeks, please ping us by tagging the "reviewers" team in a comment on this PR.

If you have any further questions while waiting for a response, please join our Zulip community to chat with project maintainers and other community members.

We appreciate your contribution!

Documentation Links

• Contributing Guidelines
• Development Guide
• Zulip Chat
• make rules for running examples
• make rules for running unit tests
• make rules for running benchmarks

[Abhist17]

Gentle ping on #15293 — it's been 3 days. Is there anything you'd like changed before it can be reviewed? Happy to rebase or split it if that helps.

[kgryte]

LGTM

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
symbol/to-primitive	$\\color{green}120/120$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{red}2/3$ $\\color{green}+66.67\\%$	$\\color{green}0/0$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}120/120$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.