attr_accessible is recommended over attr_protected Open
attr_protected :master, :provider, :buyer, :from_email, :vat_rate, :sample_data, :default_service_id, :s3_prefix,
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This warning comes up if a model does not limit what attributes can be set through mass assignment.
In particular, this check looks for attr_accessible
inside model definitions. If it is not found, this warning will be issued.
Brakeman also warns on use of attr_protected
- especially since it was found to be vulnerable to bypass. Warnings for mass assignment on models using attr_protected
will be reported, but at a lower confidence level.
Note that disabling mass assignment globally will suppress these warnings.
Unprotected mass assignment Open
self.forum = Forum.new(attributes.reverse_merge(name: 'Forum'))
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Mass assignment is a feature of Rails which allows an application to create a record from the values of a hash.
Example:
User.new(params[:user])
Unfortunately, if there is a user field called admin
which controls administrator access, now any user can make themselves an administrator.
attr_accessible
and attr_protected
can be used to limit mass assignment. However, Brakeman will warn unless attr_accessible
is used, or mass assignment is completely disabled.
There are two different mass assignment warnings which can arise. The first is when mass assignment actually occurs, such as the example above. This results in a warning like
Unprotected mass assignment near line 61: User.new(params[:user])
The other warning is raised whenever a model is found which does not use attr_accessible
. This produces generic warnings like
Mass assignment is not restricted using attr_accessible
with a list of affected models.
In Rails 3.1 and newer, mass assignment can easily be disabled:
config.active_record.whitelist_attributes = true
Unfortunately, it can also easily be bypassed:
User.new(params[:user], :without_protection => true)
Brakeman will warn on uses of without_protection
.
Class Account
has 56 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Account < ApplicationRecord
attribute :credit_card_expires_on, :date
self.ignored_columns = %i[proxy_configs_file_name proxy_configs_content_type proxy_configs_file_size
proxy_configs_updated_at proxy_configs_conf_file_name proxy_configs_conf_content_type
proxy_configs_conf_file_size proxy_configs_conf_updated_at]
File account.rb
has 403 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Account < ApplicationRecord
attribute :credit_card_expires_on, :date
self.ignored_columns = %i[proxy_configs_file_name proxy_configs_content_type proxy_configs_file_size
proxy_configs_updated_at proxy_configs_conf_file_name proxy_configs_conf_content_type
proxy_configs_conf_file_size proxy_configs_conf_updated_at]
Method to_xml
has a Cognitive Complexity of 22 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def to_xml(options = {})
#TODO: use Nokogiri builder
xml = options[:builder] || ThreeScale::XML::Builder.new
xml.account do |xml|
- Read upRead up
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
Method to_xml
has 37 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def to_xml(options = {})
#TODO: use Nokogiri builder
xml = options[:builder] || ThreeScale::XML::Builder.new
xml.account do |xml|
Account#to_xml has approx 26 statements Open
def to_xml(options = {})
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
Account has at least 49 methods Open
class Account < ApplicationRecord
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Too Many Methods
is a special case of LargeClass
.
Example
Given this configuration
TooManyMethods:
max_methods: 3
and this code:
class TooManyMethods
def one; end
def two; end
def three; end
def four; end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:TooManyMethods has at least 4 methods (TooManyMethods)
Account tests 'master?' at least 3 times Open
return if master?
if buyer?
first_admin # needs to be cached before destroying
destroy
else
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Repeated Conditional
is a special case of Simulated Polymorphism
. Basically it means you are checking the same value throughout a single class and take decisions based on this.
Example
Given
class RepeatedConditionals
attr_accessor :switch
def repeat_1
puts "Repeat 1!" if switch
end
def repeat_2
puts "Repeat 2!" if switch
end
def repeat_3
puts "Repeat 3!" if switch
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 4 warnings:
[5, 9, 13]:RepeatedConditionals tests switch at least 3 times (RepeatedConditional)
If you get this warning then you are probably not using the right abstraction or even more probable, missing an additional abstraction.
Account tests 'provider?' at least 4 times Open
BackendProviderSyncWorker.enqueue(id) if provider?
end
has_many :messages, -> { visible }, foreign_key: :sender_id, class_name: 'Message'
has_many :sent_messages, foreign_key: :sender_id, class_name: 'Message'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Repeated Conditional
is a special case of Simulated Polymorphism
. Basically it means you are checking the same value throughout a single class and take decisions based on this.
Example
Given
class RepeatedConditionals
attr_accessor :switch
def repeat_1
puts "Repeat 1!" if switch
end
def repeat_2
puts "Repeat 2!" if switch
end
def repeat_3
puts "Repeat 3!" if switch
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 4 warnings:
[5, 9, 13]:RepeatedConditionals tests switch at least 3 times (RepeatedConditional)
If you get this warning then you are probably not using the right abstraction or even more probable, missing an additional abstraction.
Account#on_trial? has the variable name 'c' Open
contracts.all? { |c| c.trial? }
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
Account#fetch_dispatch_rule has the variable name 'm' Open
MailDispatchRule.fetch_with_retry!(system_operation: operation, account: self) do |m|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
Account#paid? has the variable name 'c' Open
contracts.any? { |c| c.paid? }
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Invalid
xml.admin_domain admin_domain
xml.domain domain
xml.admin_base_url admin_base_url
xml.base_url base_url
xml.from_email from_email
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 25.
We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.
The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.
If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.
See codeclimate-duplication
's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml
.
Refactorings
- Extract Method
- Extract Class
- Form Template Method
- Introduce Null Object
- Pull Up Method
- Pull Up Field
- Substitute Algorithm
Further Reading
- Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
- Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
- Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76