Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@t-kameyama
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #6601

@detekt-ci detekt-ci added the rules label Nov 4, 2023
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 4, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7e72422) 85.10% compared to head (ed8c921) 85.10%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #6605   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     85.10%   85.10%           
- Complexity     4080     4083    +3     
=========================================
  Files           570      570           
  Lines         13375    13376    +1     
  Branches       2406     2406           
=========================================
+ Hits          11383    11384    +1     
  Misses          792      792           
  Partials       1200     1200           
Files Coverage Δ
...b/arturbosch/detekt/rules/naming/FunctionNaming.kt 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@BraisGabin BraisGabin added the pick request Marker for PRs that should be ported to the 1.0 release branch label Nov 4, 2023
@BraisGabin BraisGabin added this to the 2.0.0 milestone Nov 4, 2023
@BraisGabin BraisGabin merged commit 305e90a into detekt:main Nov 4, 2023
@t-kameyama t-kameyama deleted the issue_6601 branch November 4, 2023 14:29
cortinico pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2023
mgroth0 pushed a commit to mgroth0/detekt that referenced this pull request Feb 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

pick request Marker for PRs that should be ported to the 1.0 release branch rules

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FunctionNaming false positive when the function's name equals to the return type's name with type arguments

3 participants