Codecov Report

Merging #5129 (f6692e1) into main (6b6d904) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head f6692e1 differs from pull request most recent head 6d37691. Consider uploading reports for the commit 6d37691 to get more accurate results

@@     Coverage Diff      @@
##   main   #5129   +/-   ##
============================
============================

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

I don't like detekt-authors too much but detekt-detekt seems even worst.

I'm also not a big fan of the name. I would go for either

• detekt-rules-customrules
• detekt-rules-authors
• detekt-rules-ruleauthors

I didn't want to start it by detekt-rules because detekt-rules are the detekt's standard rules. I imagine that's the reason for detekt-formatting to be called like that instead of detekt-rules-formatting. But detekt-ruleauthors feels like a better name.

Other option is to move these to another repo under the detekt organization. That could also have sense. We talked about moving detekt-formatting out of these repo so maybe is a good thing to directly create these rules out of the main repo.

If we move it to another repo the name is not an issue anymore. We can call it detekt-rules directly.

I imagine that's the reason for detekt-formatting to be called like that instead of detekt-rules-formatting

Since we are at this: IMHO detekt-formatting is not the best name. I would have called it detekt-rules-formatting OR detekt-ktlint-wrapper.

I think that having the assumtion that detekt-rules-* contains custom rules is sound, and would make the codebase easier to discover.

Other option is to move these to another repo under the detekt organization. That could also have sense. We talked about moving detekt-formatting out of these repo so maybe is a good thing to directly create these rules out of the main repo.

That's also doable, but it really depends on how often we expect those rules to change. Maybe they can start off inside the Detekt repo and being moved outside in the future.

I imagine that's the reason for detekt-formatting to be called like that instead of detekt-rules-formatting

Since we are at this: IMHO detekt-formatting is not the best name. I would have called it detekt-rules-formatting OR detekt-ktlint-wrapper.

Agree, detekt-ktlint-wrapper seems a better name. Or just detekt-ktlint. Because there are other formatting tools.

I think that having the assumtion that detekt-rules-* contains custom rules is sound, and would make the codebase easier to discover.

That have sense, true.

So I'm renaming it to detekt-rules-ruleauthors for the gradle subproject.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 6d37691