BigDecimalDoubleConstructorRecipe should also convert BigDecimal.valueOf(doubleLiteral) -> new BigDecimal(stringLiteral)

What problem are you trying to solve?

The String constructor of BigDecimal is much nicer than BigDecimal.valueOf(doubleLiteral) because

• two chars shorter (even shorter if the double literal has trailing zeroes)
• more obvious that a new object is created
• performance gain because valueOf is converted to String constructor anyway during compilation (unlikely to be noticable).

Describe the solution you'd like

Per API BigDecimal.valueOf(double)

Translates a double into a BigDecimal, using the double's canonical string representation provided by the Double.toString(double) method.

In addition to transforming new Bigdecimal(existingDouble) to valueOf, BigDecimalDoubleConstructorRecipe should convert BigDecimal.valueOf(doubleLiteral) to new BigDecimal(doubleString) where doubleString = Double.toString(doubleLiteral).toString().
E.g. BigDecimal.valueOf(1.00) -> new BigDecimal("1.0")

Have you considered any alternatives or workarounds?

Additional context

Are you interested in contributing this feature to OpenRewrite?

Iff the idea is approved.

Locate BigDecimalDoubleConstructorRecipe in the repository and inspect its existing handling of BigDecimal constructors, along with the tests covering that recipe. Add coverage for BigDecimal.valueOf(doubleLiteral), including the stated 1.00 example, and confirm the expected new BigDecimal string-constructor output with the recipe's test suite.