3scale/porta

View on GitHub
app/presenters/applications_index_presenter.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
0 mins
Test Coverage

Method toolbar_props has a Cognitive Complexity of 23 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Wontfix

  def toolbar_props # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity, Metrics/MethodLength, Metrics/PerceivedComplexity
    show_application_plans = !application_plans.empty? && !provider.master_on_premises?
    service_column_visible = service.nil? && provider.multiservice?
    new_application_path = if service.present?
                             new_admin_service_application_path(service)
Severity: Minor
Found in app/presenters/applications_index_presenter.rb - About 3 hrs 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

Method toolbar_props has 73 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Wontfix

  def toolbar_props # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity, Metrics/MethodLength, Metrics/PerceivedComplexity
    show_application_plans = !application_plans.empty? && !provider.master_on_premises?
    service_column_visible = service.nil? && provider.multiservice?
    new_application_path = if service.present?
                             new_admin_service_application_path(service)
Severity: Major
Found in app/presenters/applications_index_presenter.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#plans_for_filter refers to 'service' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

        accessible_services.reject { |service| service.application_plans.empty? }
                            .map do |service|
                              {
                                groupName: service.name,
                                groupCollection: service.application_plans.map { |plan| plan_to_select_item(plan) }

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#plans_for_filter contains iterators nested 2 deep
    Open

                                groupCollection: service.application_plans.map { |plan| plan_to_select_item(plan) }

    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)

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#accessible_services_for_filter refers to 'service' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

          { id: service.id.to_s, title: service.name }

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#initialize has 8 parameters
    Open

      def initialize(application_plans:, accessible_services:, service:, provider:, accessible_plans:, buyer:, user:, params:)

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter has at least 12 instance variables
    Open

    class ApplicationsIndexPresenter

    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)

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#toolbar_props has approx 16 statements
    Open

      def toolbar_props # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity, Metrics/MethodLength, Metrics/PerceivedComplexity

    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.)

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#plans_for_filter calls 'service.application_plans' 2 times
    Open

        accessible_services.reject { |service| service.application_plans.empty? }
                            .map do |service|
                              {
                                groupName: service.name,
                                groupCollection: service.application_plans.map { |plan| plan_to_select_item(plan) }

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#create_application_link_href calls 'new_admin_buyers_account_application_path(buyer)' 2 times
    Open

          new_admin_buyers_account_application_path(buyer)
        elsif can?(:admin, :multiple_applications)
          if can?(:see, :multiple_applications)
            new_admin_buyers_account_application_path(buyer)

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#toolbar_props calls 'accessible_plans.find(plan_id)' 2 times
    Wontfix

            plan = (plan_id = search.plan_id) ? accessible_plans.find(plan_id) : nil
            props[:attributeFilters].append({ name: 'search[plan_id]',
                                              title: 'Plan',
                                              groupedCollection: plans_for_filter,
                                              placeholder: 'Plan',

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter assumes too much for instance variable '@raw_applications'
    Open

    class ApplicationsIndexPresenter

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#toolbar_props calls 'search.plan_id' 2 times
    Wontfix

            plan = (plan_id = search.plan_id) ? accessible_plans.find(plan_id) : nil
            props[:attributeFilters].append({ name: 'search[plan_id]',
                                              title: 'Plan',
                                              groupedCollection: plans_for_filter,
                                              placeholder: 'Plan',

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#toolbar_props calls 'props[:attributeFilters]' 5 times
    Wontfix

          props[:attributeFilters].append({ title: 'Account',
                                            name: 'search[account_query]',
                                            placeholder: 'Search by account',
                                            chip: search.account_query })
        end

    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.

    ApplicationsIndexPresenter#toolbar_props performs a nil-check
    Open

        service_column_visible = service.nil? && provider.multiservice?
        new_application_path = if service.present?
                                 new_admin_service_application_path(service)
                               elsif buyer.present?
                                 create_application_link_href

    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