Text-based checks like this are fairly brittle, let's resolve the call expression and strictly match the called function instead

Okay I will try it !🚀

This will search all parents, but this may be in a nested lambda block where it's ok. Let's only warn if it is a direct child in a function body. I.e. let's make this test not throw any warnings

@Composable
fun Example(...) {
  SideEffect {
    Locale.getDefault()
  }
}

@ZacSweers I think it’s enough to add logic to determine if Locale.getDefault() exists within a lambda block!

I don't think so. For example, this would be allowed now

@Composable
fun Example(
  body: @Composable () -> Unit = { }
) {
  body()
}

@Composable
fun Example2() {
  Example { 
    Locale.getDefault()
  }
}

thank you for your thorough review. While incorporating the feedback, I encountered some confusion and would like to clarify a few points.

So far, my understanding is as follows:

• If Locale.getDefault() is directly called in the function body → Show warning
• If Locale.getDefault() is called inside a lambda block → No warning

However, I have the following questions:

1. Isn't Locale.getDefault() in Example's body (@composable () -> Unit = { }) also called inside a lambda? If so, shouldn't it be excluded from the warning since it's called within a lambda?

2. Or, should a Composable lambda be considered as if it were directly part of the function body?

The test case I understand.

@Composable
fun Example(...) {
  val locale = Locale.getDefault() // Warning
  
  SideEffect {
    Locale.getDefault() // No Warning
  }
  
}

@Composable
fun Example(
  body: @Composable () -> Unit = { }
) {
  body()
}

@Composable
fun Example2() {
  Example { 
    Locale.getDefault() //  is it correct to show a warning in this case?
  }
}