no-identical-names rule false positives with modules inside separate scopes/functions

[bmish]

This should be an valid case (but is currently invalid):

function sharedBehavior() {
    module('moduleName', function () {});
}
module('moduleName', function () {}); // This is erroneously considered a violation.

This should be an valid case (but is currently invalid):

export default {
    desktop() {
        module('hourly chart', function () {});
    },

    mobile() {
        module('hourly chart', function () {});
    },
};

This should be an valid case (but is currently invalid):

if (foo) {
    module('module1', function () {});
} else {
    module('module1', function () {});
}

Additional test cases that should be added:

module("name1", function() {
    function sharedBehavior() {
        module("name1", function() {}); // This is fine since it's in its own scope.
    };
    module("name1", function() {}); // This is the violation.
});

function sharedBehavior() {
    module("name1", function() {});
    module("name1", function() {}); // This is the violation.
};

[platinumazure]

I'm not sure I agree about separate scopes protecting duplicate module names. The intent of no-invalid-names is to make it so that every test failure can be easily located to the correct module chain and test name. Scopes are just a way to add confusion in the file: Yes, the tests may run in a separated manner, but they are still duplicated in the file itself and make tracing of test errors harder.

If you think this is a compelling case, I think you should either not use the rule, or we should consider enhancing the rule to take scopes into account as an opt-in behavior.

What do you think?