marschwar

I disagree. Both rules cover different use cases. `ExplicitItLambdaParameter` only verifies that the parameter is not named `it` and `LambdaParameterNaming` checks for certain patterns. [edit] I don't understand to reference...

> We agree that we want a rule called RequiredNamedLambdaParameter. Probably I would not enable it in my project but it seems like a good rule to have in the...

It is certainly possible to build the parser this way. I did not plan to build a general purpose parser but rather one that is tailored to the needs of...

I looked into it a bit more and realized the AST in "my" parser does not seem to contain the comments. If I understand prettier correctly the source code is...

I think both could still remain rules without type resolution. We would only have one false negative edge case. But everyone would benefit from the rule. I do not see...

Would it help to have a gradle task that * detects if there are rules missing * adds all missing rules with their default active flags * leaves all other...

I agree with @BraisGabin . If `it` is of type unit I think it should not raise an issue, but in any other case it should.

I think this is a duplicate of #3699 (or the other way around) and I do not think it is very easy. See [this comment](https://github.com/detekt/detekt/issues/3699#issuecomment-1070978544).

Very similar issue already discussed in #4041

I am with Brais I guess. If you don't think a rule is worth breaking your build - disable it. But I can see your point as well. Should we...