FunctionNaming - Allow factory function names - fix #1639

[BraisGabin]

The PR #1668 tried to fix this issue but it seems that it forgot to add the .isEmpty() so it wasn't actually fixed.

I would like the review of @schalkms because it was the one tring to fixing this so I can be missing something.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3973 (bb71672) into main (ce7bb32) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #3973      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     83.48%   83.49%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     3159     3160       +1     
============================================
  Files           458      458              
  Lines          9047     9047              
  Branches       1759     1759              
============================================
+ Hits           7553     7554       +1     
  Misses          567      567              
+ Partials        927      926       -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...b/arturbosch/detekt/rules/naming/FunctionNaming.kt	100.00% <100.00%> (+3.84%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ce7bb32...bb71672. Read the comment docs.

[schalkms]

Thanks for the fix!

[schalkms]

Such things are tricky to catch but easy to create. Ideally, this code does not compile. It makes no sense.
Do you happen to know whether other similar instances exist in detekt's code base?

assertThat(FunctionNaming(config).compileAndLint(code)) // missing .is... check

[BraisGabin]

I think that if we merge #3974 and fix #3975 (I just created both) detekt will spot this mistakes. It is not a compilation error but I think that with an issue in detekt is enough.

[schalkms]

Good idea!