# NoMissingTypeConstructor elm-review rule fix

**URL:** <https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/nomissingtypeconstructor-elm-review-rule-fix/8153>\
**Category:** Request Feedback\
**Created:** [February 11, 2022, 4:03am UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/nomissingtypeconstructor-elm-review-rule-fix/8153 "2022-02-11T04:03:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![francescortiz](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discourse.elm-lang.org/francescortiz/32/1721_2.png) [@francescortiz](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/u/francescortiz)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2022, 1:45pm UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/nomissingtypeconstructor-elm-review-rule-fix/8153/3 "2022-02-21T13:45:22Z")

</div>

When the type constructor accepts parameters the rule checker= considers them as missing. Consider this example:

```elm
type Route 
    = Root
    | Home
    | UserDetails Int

allRoutes : Int -> List Route
allRoutes userId =
    [ Root
    , Home
    , UserDetails userId
    ]

```

In this example, it complaints that `UserDetails` constructor is not present. It would be great that it realized that there is a UserDetailts. Does it look consistent with what you want to achieve?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/nomissingtypeconstructor-elm-review-rule-fix/8153)._