FAQ: Intermediate JavaScript Modules - Import Named Imports

This community-built FAQ covers the “Import Named Imports” exercise from the lesson “Intermediate JavaScript Modules”.

Paths and Courses
This exercise can be found in the following Codecademy content:

Web Development

Introduction To JavaScript

FAQs on the exercise Import Named Imports

Join the Discussion. Help a fellow learner on their journey.

Ask or answer a question about this exercise by clicking reply (reply) below!

Agree with a comment or answer? Like (like) to up-vote the contribution!

Need broader help or resources? Head here.

Looking for motivation to keep learning? Join our wider discussions.

Learn more about how to use this guide.

Found a bug? Report it!

Have a question about your account or billing? Reach out to our customer support team!

None of the above? Find out where to ask other questions here!

There seems to be an inconsistency in coding style in this section compared to the previous ones. While I was able to follow a specific coding style which I use in VS Code (including ES6 arrow functions), this doesn’t seem possible any more here. While the code does work fine, Codecademy’s questions “Did you…” are so cryptic in such cases that I had to ask for the solution several times, only to find out that a single SPACE in a function declaration was the culprit. Arrow functions seem to be forbidden as well.


In these exercises suddenly it’s not allowed to use arrow functions and template literals anymore to continue to next steps. It takes some time to find out it is now expected to write the code in another way, and then refactor the code.

It would be nice if someone would take a look and fix this.


Agree, the coding style is much more harsh in this lesson.


I believe they might be using Babel to actually use ES6 import/export. That could explain the completely differently coding style required here, although this wouldn’t really explain the missing arrow functions.

What’s more concerning is that apparently no-one of the Codecademy team is interested in responding to ANY of my various comments and bug reports.


I’m spending more time switching from arrow functions back to the oldschool function declarations that it needs than actually doing the lesson. very frustrating.

You can copy and past the hint to get past the requirements needs to continue than delete what you just wrote and go back to arrow functions and continue on. ridiculous but it works!


Hey Codecademy :wave:

There are a few users reporting this issue, could you take a look at this please as this is really frustrating while learning, initially the arrow function passes the step when writing it out, but when adding a statement, it then becomes not OK :man_shrugging:

It also seems that missing the ; on some lessons is OK, and others it’s not. Either way when checking the program it would be great if it was consistent.

@codecademy :pray:


Already have a year ago and codecademy still don’t care to reply :man_shrugging:

I also reported several bugs in the past, but never any reply. Maybe the reports go straight into the :wastebasket:


Arrow functions no longer qualify as a solution to the Javascript: Module exercises?

function displaySpeedRangeStatus() {
  availableAirplanes.forEach(element => {

It seems that this unacceptable as opposed to:

function displaySpeedRangeStatus() {
  availableAirplanes.forEach(function(element) {

I can’t tell if this is for particular reasons, such as not using ‘this’ when writing methods; or if another issue is present. This issue seems to be occasionally present throughout the web-dev path, sometimes function declarations are not allowed, other times it is arrow functions. Based on other posts I gather that this has been a problem for some time, did Codecademy put out any timelines on this problem?


For this particular lesson the SCT is expecting this syntax:

availableAirplanes.forEach(function(element) {
//function body

I agree it is frustrating that it won’t accept arrow function syntax for this step. The arrow syntax works. What I do when I run into one of these instances, is use the syntax the lesson will accept, and then after the step is passed, I go back and change it according to my preference. I think possibly they do this on purpose, so we get practice using different methods, and to help us recognize them when we see them in the future.


@codecademy can you please look at these comments

Interesting speculation!
I would like to think this is done on purpose, for this reason… However, it does seem a harsh way to get us to use a variety of syntax - a much better approach would be to state at the outset that this is what they are trying to do, and then make it clear in the task instructions which type of syntax they would like us to practise, rather than it being left to frustrating and time-consuming trial-and-error guess work :expressionless::confused:

What I’m concerned about more than anything, is the sense some people have that their Bug Reports aren’t being responded to. As there is a specific Bug Reporting facility for this purpose, I can understand rant and raves in this forum (instead of an actual Bug Report) to fall on deaf ears, but if actual Bug Reports aren’t being acted upon, then that’s worrying!
@byteslayer77703, @jeltehomminga, is that actually the case? Did you submit Bug Reports following the prescribed procedure?..as explained here:


I submitted quite a few bugs and issues via this procedure during my first couple of months with Codecademy. However, as I never had any acknowledgement of receipt, I did start wondering whether they were acted upon. As they take a fair amount of time to describe and submit properly, I actually started sending less and less…

…does anyone else have any thoughts on this? :thinking:

If anyone is interested, here’s a link to another of my posts on this subject:


@nondera, @supertonic00, @magicmark


I agree that if the SCT behavior is on purpose that it would be much better if the lesson specified which methods to use. The trial and error is frustrating especially when you’re still learning, and aren’t sure if you may have done something else wrong. I can’t say with any certainty that the bug reports do or don’t fall on deaf ears so to speak. I do know that Codecademy has recently employed a team tasked specifically with fixing bugs in the lessons. I don’t know if they are actively investigating the learner submitted bug reports. Perhaps @alexcraig or @mtf could shed more light on this topic.


Thanks for the reply! That sounds like positive news!

I’m more than happy to spend time on submitting the bugs/errors I spot, if I know they are being at least read. The process of spotting, mulling, resolving, describing and submitting is actually a really good learning/consolidation/reenforcement process. Obviously there may be very good reasons why they are not actioned (after all I am still a beginner). As a learner, though (and also as a teacher in another field), what I feel I can say is that I think it would be much more motivational and constructive educationally for any reports to at least be acknowledged. It would be super-motivational and super-constructive if a well-submitted and well-reasoned Bug Report (one that someone has obviously taken the trouble and time to think about and set out clearly) received a reply explaining either 1) why it won’t actually be actioned; or 2) why it will be actioned - as this would provide the learner with very useful feedback (all part of the learning process).


Add to the tagged names @factoradic and @zystvan.


I’ve submitted several bug reports myself. I’ve never had one replied to directly. I have seen bugs discussed on the forum, that have either gained the attention of or were specifically brought to the attention of a Codecademy team member, and then seen the bugs fixed with an accompanying reply to the forum announcing the fix.

I’m not sure that the ‘bug fixing team’ would consider the SCT for a particular lesson only accepting one of several possible solutions a bug per se’. They may consider it more of a user preference, and not get in any hurry to address it.


I agree with you that this isn’t a bug per se. I, personally, haven’t submitted such issues in bug reports - just battled with the SCT until I’ve done what it wants, and treated it as an additional “consolidation” exercise. :wink: :rofl: However, I have definitely noticed from the comments a high number of frustrated learners with this particular lesson on modules, and when so many people are obviously being tortured rather than supported, I think that definitely comes under the scope of “bug”… until there is an additional option of submitting an “issues” report.

I have always understood that the forums were more for discussion, rather than rants about the design of particular exercises. When the rants start to outweigh healthy discussion, then I would say there is definitely a need for some “adjustments” :wink: :smiley:


The moderators and super users have a sort of inside track that has produced results in a few cases recently. I’ll see if we can’t get the issues in this thread some attention.


Thanks, really appreciate the reponses! :smiley:

1 Like

Hey all, I’ll get this flagged up, sounds very confusing indeed! Should be sorted within a week or two. If you have any future bug reports (anyone but particularly @jon_morris) send them to me in the format:

  • Summary Heading
  • URL
  • Error
  • Steps to recreate
  • Any known workaround

And I will get them sorted ASAP