Mass assignment is not restricted using attr_accessible Open
class Cinstance < Contract
- 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.
Class Cinstance
has 52 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Cinstance < Contract
include SaveDestroyForServiceAssociation
# Maximum number of cinstances permitted between provider and buyer
MAX = 10
File cinstance.rb
has 339 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Cinstance < Contract
include SaveDestroyForServiceAssociation
# Maximum number of cinstances permitted between provider and buyer
MAX = 10
Method to_xml
has a Cognitive Complexity of 28 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def to_xml(options = {})
result = options[:builder] || ThreeScale::XML::Builder.new
result.application do |xml|
unless new_record?
- 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 45 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def to_xml(options = {})
result = options[:builder] || ThreeScale::XML::Builder.new
result.application do |xml|
unless new_record?
Cinstance has at least 48 methods Open
class Cinstance < Contract
- 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)
Cinstance#to_xml contains iterators nested 3 deep Open
keys.each do |k|
keys_element.key k
end
end
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Nested Iterator
occurs when a block contains another block.
Example
Given
class Duck
class << self
def duck_names
%i!tick trick track!.each do |surname|
%i!duck!.each do |last_name|
puts "full name is #{surname} #{last_name}"
end
end
end
end
end
Reek would report the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[5]:Duck#duck_names contains iterators nested 2 deep (NestedIterators)
Cinstance has at least 5 instance variables Open
class Cinstance < Contract
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Too Many Instance Variables
is a special case of LargeClass
.
Example
Given this configuration
TooManyInstanceVariables:
max_instance_variables: 3
and this code:
class TooManyInstanceVariables
def initialize
@arg_1 = :dummy
@arg_2 = :dummy
@arg_3 = :dummy
@arg_4 = :dummy
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 5 warnings:
[1]:TooManyInstanceVariables has at least 4 instance variables (TooManyInstanceVariables)
Cinstance#to_xml has approx 25 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.)
Cinstance#select_users refers to 'c' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
service.cinstances.collect {|c| [ c.user_name, c.id ] }
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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 plan_is_unique
has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def plan_is_unique
if plan && user_account && !multiple_applications_allowed?
# All non-deleted cinstance with the same user_account as this one...
others = plan.cinstances.bought_by(user_account)
- 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
Cinstance tests 'others.empty?' at least 3 times Open
errors.add(:plan_id, 'is already bought') unless others.empty?
end
end
def application_id_is_unique
- 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.
Cinstance tests 'new_record?' at least 4 times Open
unless new_record?
xml.id_ id
xml.created_at created_at.xmlschema
xml.updated_at updated_at.xmlschema
end
- 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.
Method application_id_is_unique
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def application_id_is_unique
if provider_account
others = provider_account.provided_cinstances.by_application_id(application_id)
others = others.without_ids(self.id) unless new_record?
errors.add(:application_id, :taken) unless others.empty?
- 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 user_key_is_unique
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def user_key_is_unique
if provider_account
others = provider_account.provided_cinstances.by_user_key(user_key)
others = others.without_ids(self.id) unless new_record?
errors.add(:user_key, :taken) unless others.empty?
- 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
Cinstance#push_webhook_key_updated calls 'User.current' 2 times Open
self.web_hook_event!({user: User.current, event: "key_updated"}) if User.current
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinstance assumes too much for instance variable '@validate_plan_is_unique' Open
class Cinstance < Contract
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes should not assume that instance variables are set or present outside of the current class definition.
Good:
class Foo
def initialize
@bar = :foo
end
def foo?
@bar == :foo
end
end
Good as well:
class Foo
def foo?
bar == :foo
end
def bar
@bar ||= :foo
end
end
Bad:
class Foo
def go_foo!
@bar = :foo
end
def foo?
@bar == :foo
end
end
Example
Running Reek on:
class Dummy
def test
@ivar
end
end
would report:
[1]:InstanceVariableAssumption: Dummy assumes too much for instance variable @ivar
Note that this example would trigger this smell warning as well:
class Parent
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
@omg
end
end
The way to address the smell warning is that you should create an attr_reader
to use @omg
in the subclass and not access @omg
directly like this:
class Parent
attr_reader :omg
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
omg
end
end
Directly accessing instance variables is considered a smell because it breaks encapsulation and makes it harder to reason about code.
If you don't want to expose those methods as public API just make them private like this:
class Parent
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
private
attr_reader :omg
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
omg
end
end
Current Support in Reek
An instance variable must:
- be set in the constructor
- or be accessed through a method with lazy initialization / memoization.
If not, Instance Variable Assumption will be reported.
Cinstance#to_xml calls 'service.backend_version' 2 times Open
if service.backend_version.v1?
xml.user_key( user_key )
xml.provider_verification_key( provider_public_key )
else #v2, oauth on enterprise
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinstance assumes too much for instance variable '@validate_human_edition' Open
class Cinstance < Contract
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes should not assume that instance variables are set or present outside of the current class definition.
Good:
class Foo
def initialize
@bar = :foo
end
def foo?
@bar == :foo
end
end
Good as well:
class Foo
def foo?
bar == :foo
end
def bar
@bar ||= :foo
end
end
Bad:
class Foo
def go_foo!
@bar = :foo
end
def foo?
@bar == :foo
end
end
Example
Running Reek on:
class Dummy
def test
@ivar
end
end
would report:
[1]:InstanceVariableAssumption: Dummy assumes too much for instance variable @ivar
Note that this example would trigger this smell warning as well:
class Parent
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
@omg
end
end
The way to address the smell warning is that you should create an attr_reader
to use @omg
in the subclass and not access @omg
directly like this:
class Parent
attr_reader :omg
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
omg
end
end
Directly accessing instance variables is considered a smell because it breaks encapsulation and makes it harder to reason about code.
If you don't want to expose those methods as public API just make them private like this:
class Parent
def initialize(omg)
@omg = omg
end
private
attr_reader :omg
end
class Child < Parent
def foo
omg
end
end
Current Support in Reek
An instance variable must:
- be set in the constructor
- or be accessed through a method with lazy initialization / memoization.
If not, Instance Variable Assumption will be reported.
Cinstance has missing safe method 'validate_plan_is_unique!' Open
def validate_plan_is_unique!
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Cinstance has missing safe method 'change_user_key!' Open
def change_user_key!
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Cinstance has missing safe method 'reject!' Open
def reject!(reason)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Cinstance has missing safe method 'change_provider_public_key!' Open
def change_provider_public_key!
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Cinstance has missing safe method 'validate_human_edition!' Open
def validate_human_edition!
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Cinstance#select_users has the variable name 'c' Open
service.cinstances.collect {|c| [ c.user_name, c.id ] }
- 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.
Cinstance#to_xml has the variable name 'k' Open
keys.each do |k|
- 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.