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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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. Blocks that are calls to builtin iteration methods (e.g. `ary.map{...}) also add one, others are ignored.

def each_child_node(*types)               # count begins: 1
  unless block_given?                     # unless: +1
    return to_enum(__method__, *types)

  children.each do |child|                # each{}: +1
    next unless child.is_a?(Node)         # unless: +1

    yield child if types.empty? ||        # if: +1, ||: +1
                   types.include?(child.type)
  end

  self
end                                       # total: 6

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop identifies the use of a &block parameter and block.call where yield would do just as well.

Example:

# bad
def method(&block)
  block.call
end
def another(&func)
  func.call 1, 2, 3
end

# good
def method
  yield
end
def another
  yield 1, 2, 3
end

This cop identifies the use of a &block parameter and block.call where yield would do just as well.

Example:

# bad
def method(&block)
  block.call
end
def another(&func)
  func.call 1, 2, 3
end

# good
def method
  yield
end
def another
  yield 1, 2, 3
end

Looks for expressions containing multiple binary operators where precedence is ambiguous due to lack of parentheses. For example, in 1 + 2 * 3, the multiplication will happen before the addition, but lexically it appears that the addition will happen first.

The cop does not consider unary operators (ie. !a or -b) or comparison operators (ie. a =~ b) because those are not ambiguous.

NOTE: Ranges are handled by Lint/AmbiguousRange.

Example:

# bad
a + b * c
a || b && c
a ** b + c

# good (different precedence)
a + (b * c)
a || (b && c)
(a ** b) + c

# good (same precedence)
a + b + c
a * b / c % d

Checks for the presence of constructors and lifecycle callbacks without calls to super.

This cop does not consider method_missing (and respond_to_missing?) because in some cases it makes sense to overtake what is considered a missing method. In other cases, the theoretical ideal handling could be challenging or verbose for no actual gain.

Autocorrection is not supported because the position of super cannot be determined automatically.

Object and BasicObject are allowed by this cop because of their stateless nature. However, sometimes you might want to allow other parent classes from this cop, for example in the case of an abstract class that is not meant to be called with super. In those cases, you can use the AllowedParentClasses option to specify which classes should be allowed in addition to Object and BasicObject.

Example:

# bad
class Employee < Person
  def initialize(name, salary)
    @salary = salary
  end
end

# good
class Employee < Person
  def initialize(name, salary)
    super(name)
    @salary = salary
  end
end

# bad
Employee = Class.new(Person) do
  def initialize(name, salary)
    @salary = salary
  end
end

# good
Employee = Class.new(Person) do
  def initialize(name, salary)
    super(name)
    @salary = salary
  end
end

# bad
class Parent
  def self.inherited(base)
    do_something
  end
end

# good
class Parent
  def self.inherited(base)
    super
    do_something
  end
end

# good
class ClassWithNoParent
  def initialize
    do_something
  end
end

Example: AllowedParentClasses: [MyAbstractClass]

# good
class MyConcreteClass < MyAbstractClass
  def initialize
    do_something
  end
end

Requires a gemspec to have rubygems_mfa_required metadata set.

This setting tells RubyGems that MFA (Multi-Factor Authentication) is required for accounts to be able perform privileged operations, such as (see RubyGems' documentation for the full list of privileged operations):

• gem push
• gem yank
• gem owner --add/remove
• adding or removing owners using gem ownership page

This helps make your gem more secure, as users can be more confident that gem updates were pushed by maintainers.

Example:

# bad
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  # no `rubygems_mfa_required` metadata specified
end

# good
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata = {
    'rubygems_mfa_required' => 'true'
  }
end

# good
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata['rubygems_mfa_required'] = 'true'
end

# bad
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata = {
    'rubygems_mfa_required' => 'false'
  }
end

# good
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata = {
    'rubygems_mfa_required' => 'true'
  }
end

# bad
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata['rubygems_mfa_required'] = 'false'
end

# good
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
  spec.metadata['rubygems_mfa_required'] = 'true'
end