I usually import the Json.Decode module as D and the Json.Encode module as E.
Regardless if that is a good idea or not, i was surprised to see that E.Value was analysed to be a safe port value, while D.Value was not. Moreover, Json.Decode.Value works fine.

The reason seems to be additional imported modules using the same alias (in this case: "D")

Expected behaviour:

import Json.Decode as D
import Json.Decode.Pipeline as D

port portName: (D.Value -> msg) -> Sub msg

should not result in any errors.

I think it would be useful to have a rule that checks whether a port is unused. This can crash people's applications, and is also a common problem that beginners run into but do not understand.

If this gets added, I think the package's documentation (in the README and in the elm.json at least) should change to say it's a general review package for rules, one way or another.

Thanks for making this package ❤️

I don't want to have to go out from our Elm files to find where a port is being used most of the time. Simply adding a line or two explaining what the port triggers, or where the values coming in from a port can help a lot.

Ref: NoRedInk Elm style guide

See sparksp/elm-review-camelcase@c0776a4

Hi, I'm experiencing false positives from the NoUnusedPorts rule and was curious whether it is a known issue.

I'm thinking that the biggest contributing factors are either that I'm using elm-spa and the code path to a main function is therefore quite complex and includes the page it is referenced in being in a record, and the main function accessing it through a key in a record, or maybe because I don't explicitly use the port in a subscription call, but wrap it in a helper function. I'm thinking the most likely is the first one though.

Let me know if it's not a known issue and you'd like me to spend more time narrowing down the cause of the false positive

Using "in-module" test configuration if my test is using an update function it can happen that rule reports a false positive