3scale/porta

View on GitHub
app/presenters/buyers/service_contracts_index_presenter.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
2 hrs
Test Coverage

Method toolbar_props has 42 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def toolbar_props # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/MethodLength, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity, Metrics/PerceivedComplexity
    if (plan_id = search.plan_id) && (plan = ServicePlan.find(plan_id))
      plan_name = plan.name
      plan_service = plan.service.name
    end
Severity: Minor
Found in app/presenters/buyers/service_contracts_index_presenter.rb - About 1 hr to fix

    Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter#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.

    Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter has at least 6 instance variables
    Open

    class Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter

    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)

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

            groupName: service.name,
            groupCollection: service.service_plans.map do |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.

    Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter#plans_for_filter refers to 'plan' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

              { id: plan.id.to_s, title: plan.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.

    Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter has at least 18 methods
    Open

    class Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter

    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)

    Buyers::ServiceContractsIndexPresenter#plans_for_filter contains iterators nested 2 deep
    Open

            groupCollection: service.service_plans.map do |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)

    Method toolbar_props has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

      def toolbar_props # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/MethodLength, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity, Metrics/PerceivedComplexity
        if (plan_id = search.plan_id) && (plan = ServicePlan.find(plan_id))
          plan_name = plan.name
          plan_service = plan.service.name
        end
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/presenters/buyers/service_contracts_index_presenter.rb - About 35 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

    Method initialize has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

      def initialize(user:, params:, provider:) # rubocop:disable Metrics/AbcSize, Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
        @user = user
        @params = params
        @provider = provider
    
    
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/presenters/buyers/service_contracts_index_presenter.rb - About 25 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

    There are no issues that match your filters.

    Category
    Status