Improve correctness of UnusedPrivateProperty

[luanpotter]

Fixes #5934

Basically ignore package declarations when counting references for the purposes of identifying Unused Private Properties.

Followups

I believe there are many other edge cases that could be considered; for example, the right-hand side of a dot-expression is also being considered a use reference:

class A (val a: String = "foo")

fun main() {
    val a = 1
    println(A().a)
}

Should cause an error, but it doesn't. I'm not sure if there is a better solution here other than exploring each edge case individually, but I am happy to chip down on at least the more obvious ones on followup PRs.

[luanpotter]

note: adding a bit of structure as we can followup with more exceptions and rules for other edge cases

[luanpotter]

example of a followup: ignore import statements as well

[github-advanced-security]

detekt found more than 10 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5935 (fbc8a85) into main (39461cf) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #5935   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     84.46%   84.46%           
  Complexity     3784     3784           
=========================================
  Files           546      546           
  Lines         12923    12928    +5     
  Branches       2268     2271    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits          10915    10920    +5     
  Misses          877      877           
  Partials       1131     1131           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...rbosch/detekt/rules/style/UnusedPrivateProperty.kt	93.33% <100.00%> (+0.60%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[schalkms]

Thanks for the quick fix!
Besides the redundant two tests, this PR looks very good!

[schalkms]

I do think we only need this test to be added. The other cases are covered by the existing tests.

[luanpotter]

good point! I had skimmed the file for these tests but initially failed to see them nested in the inner classes.
I removed the other two.

on that note though, lmk of including my 1 test under a new "irrelevant references are ignored" nested class (it seems all tests are nested somewhere)
I was planning on following this up with some other edge cases (eg import statements should be ignored as well)
but I am happy to put the test nested somewhere else if that makes sense, just lmk where it better fits

[schalkms]

Regarding test under new nested class 👍
Regarding follow up --> please submit a new PR, it's easier to review 👍

[luanpotter]

yes, def meant followup PRs! thanks for reviewing so swiftly :)