Match functions signatures with lambdas on it

[BraisGabin]

Related with #4448 but it doesn't fix it yet. The next step is to support extension functions.

Note: If you check the tests you will see that the signature foo(() -> kotlin.String) matches a functione like this one: fun foo(a: () -> Unit). That's because we don't need to distinguish between this two functions:

fun foo(a: () -> Unit)
fun foo(a: () -> String)

The compiler doesn't allow to define both at the same time.

If we want to distinguish between those we would introduce a breaking change because until now this signature: foo(List) was matching fun foo(a: List<String>) but if we enforce to specify the generics that type should be changed.

For those two reasons combined I think that it's better to ignore the generics.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #4458 (367ec74) into main (a9c38b8) will decrease coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is 88.88%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #4458      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     84.32%   84.16%   -0.16%     
- Complexity     3298     3314      +16     
============================================
  Files           473      476       +3     
  Lines         10591    10908     +317     
  Branches       1907     2023     +116     
============================================
+ Hits           8931     9181     +250     
- Misses          675      694      +19     
- Partials        985     1033      +48     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...in/io/github/detekt/tooling/api/FunctionMatcher.kt	86.36% <88.88%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
...lab/arturbosch/detekt/rules/style/VarCouldBeVal.kt	84.37% <0.00%> (-3.13%)	⬇️
...ekt/generator/collection/ConfigurationCollector.kt	72.22% <0.00%> (-3.04%)	⬇️
...osch/detekt/rules/bugs/UselessPostfixExpression.kt	71.73% <0.00%> (-0.99%)	⬇️
...urbosch/detekt/rules/performance/ArrayPrimitive.kt	74.19% <0.00%> (-0.81%)	⬇️
...sch/detekt/generator/printer/RuleSetPagePrinter.kt	90.38% <0.00%> (-0.53%)	⬇️
.../arturbosch/detekt/rules/style/CanBeNonNullable.kt	72.61% <0.00%> (-0.52%)	⬇️
...tlab/arturbosch/detekt/rules/bugs/LateinitUsage.kt	91.30% <0.00%> (-0.37%)	⬇️
...sch/detekt/rules/style/UnnecessaryAbstractClass.kt	86.36% <0.00%> (-0.31%)	⬇️
...bosch/detekt/rules/complexity/LongParameterList.kt	85.41% <0.00%> (-0.30%)	⬇️
... and 18 more

---

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 a9c38b8...367ec74. Read the comment docs.

[picklebento]

Thanks for expanding the supports for Function signatures! My comments were not blocking, they were primarily documenting my time spent on the confusion.

[picklebento]

Is it.isNotBlank() necessary? Without verifying with actual test code, I assume they are only possible at Line 97. I believe the isNotBlank() and trim() should be applied when append() is invoked, which avoids creating more lists.

[BraisGabin]

Fixed, what do you think now?