attr_accessible is recommended over attr_protected Open
attr_protected :account_id, :tenant_id, :audit_ids
- 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 BillingStrategy
has 37 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Finance::BillingStrategy < ApplicationRecord
module NonAuditedColumns
def non_audited_columns
super - [inheritance_column]
end
File billing_strategy.rb
has 305 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Finance::BillingStrategy < ApplicationRecord
module NonAuditedColumns
def non_audited_columns
super - [inheritance_column]
end
Method daily
has a Cognitive Complexity of 14 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.daily(options = {})
raise 'Options must be a hash' unless options.is_a?(Hash)
Rails.logger.info("Finance::BillingStrategy.daily started for options #{options}")
- 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 daily
has 33 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.daily(options = {})
raise 'Options must be a hash' unless options.is_a?(Hash)
Rails.logger.info("Finance::BillingStrategy.daily started for options #{options}")
Method bill_and_charge_each
has 27 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def bill_and_charge_each(options = {})
buyer_ids = options[:buyer_ids]
@failed_buyers = []
if provider.nil?
Finance::BillingStrategy#bill_expired_trials refers to 'contract' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
plan_type = contract.plan.class.model_name.human.downcase
info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} for #{plan_type} #{contract.plan.id} (#{contract.plan.name}) - just signed up or trial period expired", buyer)
contract.bill_for(Month.new(now), invoice_for(buyer, now))
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_cost has 5 parameters Open
def add_cost(contract, name, description, cost, plan = contract.plan)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Long Parameter List
occurs when a method has a lot of parameters.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def long_list(foo,bar,baz,fling,flung)
puts foo,bar,baz,fling,flung
end
end
Reek would report the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2]:Dummy#long_list has 5 parameters (LongParameterList)
A common solution to this problem would be the introduction of parameter objects.
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost refers to 'plan' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
cost = plan.cost_for_period(period)
if cost.nonzero?
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
reason = action == :refund ? 'Refund' : 'Fixed fee'
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost has 4 parameters Open
def add_plan_cost(action, contract, plan, period)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Long Parameter List
occurs when a method has a lot of parameters.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def long_list(foo,bar,baz,fling,flung)
puts foo,bar,baz,fling,flung
end
end
Reek would report the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2]:Dummy#long_list has 5 parameters (LongParameterList)
A common solution to this problem would be the introduction of parameter objects.
Finance::BillingStrategy#notify_about_expired_credit_cards has approx 8 statements Open
def notify_about_expired_credit_cards(now)
- 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.)
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost is controlled by argument 'action' Open
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
reason = action == :refund ? 'Refund' : 'Fixed fee'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Control Parameter
is a special case of Control Couple
Example
A simple example would be the "quoted" parameter in the following method:
def write(quoted)
if quoted
write_quoted @value
else
write_unquoted @value
end
end
Fixing those problems is out of the scope of this document but an easy solution could be to remove the "write" method alltogether and to move the calls to "writequoted" / "writeunquoted" in the initial caller of "write".
Finance::BillingStrategy has at least 28 methods Open
class Finance::BillingStrategy < 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)
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost refers to 'cost' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
if cost.nonzero?
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
reason = action == :refund ? 'Refund' : 'Fixed fee'
add_cost(contract, "#{reason} ('#{plan.name}')", period.to_s, cost * sign, plan)
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost refers to 'action' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
reason = action == :refund ? 'Refund' : 'Fixed fee'
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#bill_and_charge_each has approx 20 statements Open
def bill_and_charge_each(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.)
Finance::BillingStrategy#self.daily has approx 25 statements Open
def self.daily(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.)
Method add_cost
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Wontfix
def add_cost(contract, name, description, cost, plan = contract.plan)
Method notify_billing_results
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.notify_billing_results(results)
BillingMailer.billing_finished(results).deliver_now unless results.successful?
rescue => error
System::ErrorReporting.report_error(error)
env = Rails.env
- 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 bill_and_charge_each
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def bill_and_charge_each(options = {})
buyer_ids = options[:buyer_ids]
@failed_buyers = []
if provider.nil?
- 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 add_plan_cost
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def add_plan_cost(action, contract, plan, period)
cost = plan.cost_for_period(period)
if cost.nonzero?
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
- 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
Finance::BillingStrategy#self.daily calls 'Rails.logger' 3 times Open
Rails.logger.info("Finance::BillingStrategy.daily started for options #{options}")
now = options[:now] || Time.now.utc
skip_notifications = options[:skip_notifications]
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy assumes too much for instance variable '@failed_buyers' Open
class Finance::BillingStrategy < ApplicationRecord
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#add_plan_cost calls 'action == :refund' 2 times Open
sign = action == :refund ? -1 : 1
reason = action == :refund ? 'Refund' : 'Fixed fee'
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#charge_invoices calls 'log_prefix(buyer)' 2 times Open
Rails.logger.info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} trying to charge invoice #{invoice.id}")
invoice.charge!
end
else
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#bill_expired_trials calls 'contract.plan' 3 times Open
plan_type = contract.plan.class.model_name.human.downcase
info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} for #{plan_type} #{contract.plan.id} (#{contract.plan.name}) - just signed up or trial period expired", buyer)
- 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.
Finance::BillingStrategy#charge_invoices calls 'Rails.logger' 2 times Open
Rails.logger.info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} trying to charge invoice #{invoice.id}")
invoice.charge!
end
else
- 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.
Method next_available_friendly_id
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def next_available_friendly_id(month, step = 1)
return unless month
id_prefix = billing_monthly? ? month : month.begin.year
last_of_period = Invoice.by_provider(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
Finance::BillingStrategy#charge_invoices performs a nil-check Open
if self.currency.nil?
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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)
Finance::BillingStrategy takes parameters ['buyer', 'txt'] to 3 methods Open
def warning(txt, buyer = nil)
LogEntry.log(:warning, txt, self.account_id, buyer)
end
def error(txt, buyer = nil)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
In general, a Data Clump
occurs when the same two or three items frequently appear together in classes and parameter lists, or when a group of instance variable names start or end with similar substrings.
The recurrence of the items often means there is duplicate code spread around to handle them. There may be an abstraction missing from the code, making the system harder to understand.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def x(y1,y2); end
def y(y1,y2); end
def z(y1,y2); end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2, 3, 4]:Dummy takes parameters [y1, y2] to 3 methods (DataClump)
A possible way to fix this problem (quoting from Martin Fowler):
The first step is to replace data clumps with objects and use the objects whenever you see them. An immediate benefit is that you'll shrink some parameter lists. The interesting stuff happens as you begin to look for behavior to move into the new objects.
Finance::BillingStrategy takes parameters ['buyer', 'now'] to 6 methods Open
def bill_expired_trials(buyer, now)
buyer.billable_contracts_with_trial_period_expired(now - 1.day).find_each(batch_size: 50) do |contract|
plan_type = contract.plan.class.model_name.human.downcase
info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} for #{plan_type} #{contract.plan.id} (#{contract.plan.name}) - just signed up or trial period expired", buyer)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
In general, a Data Clump
occurs when the same two or three items frequently appear together in classes and parameter lists, or when a group of instance variable names start or end with similar substrings.
The recurrence of the items often means there is duplicate code spread around to handle them. There may be an abstraction missing from the code, making the system harder to understand.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def x(y1,y2); end
def y(y1,y2); end
def z(y1,y2); end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2, 3, 4]:Dummy takes parameters [y1, y2] to 3 methods (DataClump)
A possible way to fix this problem (quoting from Martin Fowler):
The first step is to replace data clumps with objects and use the objects whenever you see them. An immediate benefit is that you'll shrink some parameter lists. The interesting stuff happens as you begin to look for behavior to move into the new objects.
Finance::BillingStrategy::FindEachFix#ignoring_find_each_scope doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def ignoring_find_each_scope(&block)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Finance::BillingStrategy#bill_and_charge_each performs a nil-check Open
if provider.nil?
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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)
Finance::BillingStrategy#self.daily has the variable name 'e' Open
rescue => e
- 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. Open
def bill_fixed_costs(buyer, now = Time.now.utc)
info("#{log_prefix(buyer)} billing fixed costs at #{now}", buyer)
buyer.billable_contracts.find_each(batch_size: 50) do |contract|
contract.bill_for(Month.new(now), invoice_for(buyer, now))
- 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 31.
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