3scale/porta

View on GitHub
app/lib/fields/extensions.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
45 mins
Test Coverage

Fields::Extensions::AssociationCollectionExtension#modify_attributes_with_fields refers to 'attributes' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
Open

      attributes = attributes.nil? ? {} : attributes.dup

      # this is not possible, because when object is created by association,
      # then attributes like owner_id are set after initializer is run
      # so we cannot lookup fields defininitions source and have to set it this way
Severity: Minor
Found in app/lib/fields/extensions.rb by reek

Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.

Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.

Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.

Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.

Example

Running Reek on:

class Warehouse
  def sale_price(item)
    (item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
  end
end

would report:

Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)

since this:

(item.price - item.rebate)

belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.

Method modify_attributes_with_fields has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

    def modify_attributes_with_fields(attributes)
      attributes = attributes.nil? ? {} : attributes.dup

      # this is not possible, because when object is created by association,
      # then attributes like owner_id are set after initializer is run
Severity: Minor
Found in app/lib/fields/extensions.rb - About 45 mins to fix

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

  • Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
  • Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
  • Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

Fields::Extensions::AssociationCollectionExtension#modify_attributes_with_fields manually dispatches method call
Open

      if klass.respond_to?(:has_fields?) && klass.has_fields?
Severity: Minor
Found in app/lib/fields/extensions.rb by reek

Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.

Example

class MyManualDispatcher
  attr_reader :foo

  def initialize(foo)
    @foo = foo
  end

  def call
    foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
  end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)

Fields::Extensions::AssociationCollectionExtension#modify_attributes_with_fields calls 'proxy_association.owner' 2 times
Open

          attributes.map! {|attrs| attrs[:fields_definitions_source] = proxy_association.owner }
        else
          attributes[:fields_definitions_source] = proxy_association.owner
Severity: Minor
Found in app/lib/fields/extensions.rb by reek

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

Fields::Extensions::AssociationCollectionExtension#modify_attributes_with_fields performs a nil-check
Open

      attributes = attributes.nil? ? {} : attributes.dup
Severity: Minor
Found in app/lib/fields/extensions.rb by reek

A NilCheck is a type check. Failures of NilCheck violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.

Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.

Example

Given

class Klass
  def nil_checker(argument)
    if argument.nil?
      puts "argument isn't nil!"
    end
  end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)

There are no issues that match your filters.

Category
Status