Make suggestion when autoload resolves to true

## What problem would the enhancement address for VIP?

Options get marked as autoload=yes when being added, unless there is an explicit setting to no.

For VIP clients, we should flag when it is yes, to remind and encourage developers to consider whether it should be autoload=no, which can help with performance.

## Describe the solution you'd like

PHPCS Warning when `'yes'` or `true` is supplied or implied when calling `add_option()` or `update_option()`.

## What code should be reported as a violation?

```
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', '', 'yes' );
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', '', true ); // Can be 'yes' string or boolean.
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', '' );
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value' );
add_option( 'my_option' );
update_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', 'yes' );
update_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', true ); // Can be 'yes' string or boolean.
```

## What code should *not* be reported as a violation?

```
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', '', 'no' );
add_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', '', false );
update_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', 'no' );
update_option( 'my_option', 'my_value', false );
```

## Additional context

Some items may indeed be valid to be autoloaded, so it's not an Error in all cases.

This may seem like a bit of noise for some cases, but I think it counts as a good reminder. We can link the error message to [our public docs about autoloading](https://wpvip.com/documentation/vip-go/working-with-wp_options/#autoloading).

Localiza el sniff de PHPCS y las pruebas que gestionan add_option() y update_option(); inspecciona cómo se clasifican los argumentos omitidos, los valores literales yes/no y los booleanos. Se considera completado cuando los casos yes/true/implied indicados producen advertencias, los casos no/false no las producen y la advertencia puede hacer referencia a la documentación de autoloading proporcionada.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.