Róbert Papp

There's a use case for it: `only: Test + ignore org.junit.Test` (i.e. any test body except JUnit 4). Of course this sounds bonkers with test annotations, but there are many...

I think the biggest highlight from https://github.com/detekt/detekt/issues/6509#issuecomment-1783925858 should be the lack of "unannotated" support (potentially combined with other config options). Since we have no ability to instantiate a rule multiple...

Agreed, I would be voting for an `ExplicitThis` rule if anything for extension functions.

+1 for 3), however the complexity shouldn't increase as we already have an "inherited" setting: enabled, right? Can these two use the same mechanism? Could it be enough to define...

🤦🏻‍♂️ that makes so much sense. So this is a viable option: ```kotlin fun cycle(start: Any, end: Any): String = "cycle ${start}-${end}" ``` I guess your observation will hold true...

Documentation alone is cumbersome :) if someone enables this rule, they probably want it?

I think `run` is not a workaround, but **a** solution here. Yes it's the same-ish complexity as `let`, but that's just syntax, there's also semantic meaning behind `let`/`also`/`run`/`apply`/`with`, that's why...

No, the fix of #3508 (which is #5981) enables this improvement. Just look at the "Expected/Observed" examples, the rest is suggestions.

> Nearly no one will be brave to edit it. I'm happy to write some docs on the rule on what the regex parts mean (in addition to a link...

+1 I was really missing this when I wrote my own Detekt rules. I would add the requirement that at least 99% of the tests should be able to compile...