*Feature Request* It would be nice if the import/extensions rule would only complain about a missing extension if adding the extension would still be resolvable. This is only an issue if the package.json has a subpath mapping that adds the file extension for you. *Background* Our goal is to achieve ES module compatibility in that the resolver should not have to experiment with extensions to find the target file - it should be able to apply the rules in package.json to resolve to a valid target file. Some packages define `"exports"` or `"imports"` subpath mappings in their `package.json` which adds file extensions to the requested import. In cases where the subpath mapping is defined to add an extension, it is important not to add an extension when importing sub-paths from those packages as this would result in the extension being added twice. On the other hand, if there is no "exports" mapping in a package or that mapping does *not* add the file extension, it is best to specify the file path with the extension that matches the target file. Currently the "extensions" rule resolves the actual target file and compares the extension of that file with the extension used to import. If they do not match, it would report an error if configured to do so. If the extension does match, it might report that the extension is forbidden, but it only reports a forbidden extension if the import still resolves without a file extension. *Implementation* It seems to me it would make sense to add a similar rule in the mismatch case as in the forbidden check - if the extensions do not match, it should only report an error if the import would still resolve after adding the extension.