feat(rome_js_analyze): Implement prefer-numeric-literals lint

[95th]

Implements:

• https://github.com/rome/tools/issues/3360

Summary

Support prefer-numeric-literals lint rule

Test Plan

added unit tests for lint.

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-rometools ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d302f510ce4ae8243c38b5bd54641f84c052537b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-rometools/deploys/637210d74d725200096bfbce
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3558--docs-rometools.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[95th]

~~For some reason, the below case is not caught (perhaps due to another rule already being applied)~~

Number[`parseInt`]('12', 8);

nvm. It was bug in the logic.

[95th]

@MichaReiser I am getting the below error on the below test case. Can you please help?

Number.parseInt('17', 8)in foo

Error:

thread 'specs::style::prefer_numeric_literals_js' panicked at 'There should be no errors in the file "/Users/gurwindersi/tools/crates/rome_js_analyze/tests/specs/style/preferNumericLiterals.js" but the following errors where present:
/Users/gurwindersi/tools/crates/rome_js_analyze/tests/specs/style/preferNumericLiterals.js:63:1 parse ━━━━━━━━━━

  × expected a statement but instead found '0b11in foo
    Number.parseInt('17', 8)in foo
    parseInt('A', 16)in foo
    parseInt('11', 2) in foo
    Number.parseInt('17', 8)/**/in foo
    (parseInt('A', 16))in foo
    /* comment */Number.parseInt('11', 2)'

    61 │ Number.parseInt('17', 8)+5
    62 │ parseInt('A', 16)+5
  > 63 │ 0b11in foo
       │ ^^^^^^^^^^
  > 64 │ Number.parseInt('17', 8)in foo
        ...
  > 68 │ (parseInt('A', 16))in foo
  > 69 │ /* comment */Number.parseInt('11', 2);
       │ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    70 │ Number/**/.parseInt('11', 2);

[MichaReiser]

Thank you so much @95th for this contribution. Looking all good. Can you rebase your changes to resolve the merge conflicts, and we're good to