Invert behavior of name[missing] for user-specified modules (e.g., for import_tasks)

[librick]

When using the import_tasks module, I think that requiring a name field above every ansible.builtin.import_tasks: <sometaskfile.yml> is gratuitous. E.g., I commonly have a file that includes multiple import_tasks lines:

---
- ansible.builtin.import_tasks: my_first_tasks.yml
- ansible.builtin.import_tasks: my_second_tasks.yml
- ansible.builtin.import_tasks: my_third_tasks.yml

and I see messages such as:

name[missing]: All tasks should be named.
main.yml:2 Task/Handler: import_tasks my_first_tasks.yml
name[missing]: All tasks should be named.
main.yml:3 Task/Handler: import_tasks my_second_tasks.yml
name[missing]: All tasks should be named.
main.yml:4 Task/Handler: import_tasks my_third_tasks.yml

Adding names to the above needlessly clutters the file and obscures my intent.
According to the docs, I can disable name[missing] messages for all tasks/modules: https://ansible-lint.readthedocs.io/rules/name/, but I still want to require names for tasks which use other modules, just not for the import_tasks module.

Further, when I explicitly say that I don't want a specific module to be used with name, I want a rule to enforce that it is never used for that module. I.e., It should be a linting error to use name with ansible.builtin.import_tasks when I explicitly disable name for all uses of the ansible.builtin.import_tasks module.

Finally, I also anticipate situtations in which I write my own modules which are similarly self-descriptive (and for which I don't want to use a name field). So I'm not suggesting a hard-coded exception for the ansible.builtin.import_tasks module specifically. I just want to be able to enforce the absence/presence of the name field on a per-module basis for any specified module.
Thoughts?

[maxmureev]

I agree with the author of the topic and propose to combine all these modules into requested rule:

• import_tasks/include_tasks
• import_role/include_role
• import_playbook