Method has too many lines. [13/10] Open
def period_start_before_end
# both empty, validate nothing
return if !start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
if start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.
Cyclomatic complexity for period_start_before_end is too high. [8/6] Open
def period_start_before_end
# both empty, validate nothing
return if !start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
if start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.
An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.
Perceived complexity for period_start_before_end is too high. [9/7] Open
def period_start_before_end
# both empty, validate nothing
return if !start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
if start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the
complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that
reason it considers when
nodes as something that doesn't add as much
complexity as an if
or a &&
. Except if it's one of those special
case
/when
constructs where there's no expression after case
. Then
the cop treats it as an if
/elsif
/elsif
... and lets all the when
nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop
considers else
nodes as adding complexity.
Example:
def my_method # 1
if cond # 1
case var # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
when 1 then func_one
when 2 then func_two
when 3 then func_three
when 4..10 then func_other
end
else # 1
do_something until a && b # 2
end # ===
end # 7 complexity points
Method period_start_before_end
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def period_start_before_end
# both empty, validate nothing
return if !start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
if start_period.presence && !end_period.presence
- 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
Add an empty line after magic comments. Open
# == Schema Information
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Checks for a newline after the final magic comment.
Example:
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
# Some documentation for Person
class Person
# Some code
end
# bad
# frozen_string_literal: true
# Some documentation for Person
class Person
# Some code
end
Line is too long. [114/100] Open
invalid_rules = decision_table.rules.reject { |rule| available_codes.include?(rule[HEADER_IN_ACTIVITY_CODE]) }
- Exclude checks
Line is too long. [138/100] Open
invalid_rules.each { |invalid_rule| errors[:content] << "#{invalid_rule.inspect} not in available package codes #{available_codes}!" }
- Exclude checks