Method alert_field_changed
has a Cognitive Complexity of 65 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_field_changed
return unless load_edit("miq_alert_edit__#{params[:id]}")
@alert = @edit[:alert_id] ? MiqAlert.find(@edit[:alert_id]) : MiqAlert.new
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 alert_valid_record?
has a Cognitive Complexity of 63 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_valid_record?(alert)
if alert.expression.nil?
add_flash(_("A valid expression must be present"), :error)
end
unless display_driving_event?
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 alert_build_edit_screen
has a Cognitive Complexity of 52 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_edit_screen
@edit = {}
@edit[:new] = {}
@edit[:current] = {}
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
File miq_alert_controller.rb
has 632 lines of code (exceeds 400 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class MiqAlertController < ApplicationController
before_action :check_privileges
before_action :get_session_data
after_action :cleanup_action
after_action :set_session_data
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_field_changed is too high. [51/11] Open
def alert_field_changed
return unless load_edit("miq_alert_edit__#{params[:id]}")
@alert = @edit[:alert_id] ? MiqAlert.find(@edit[:alert_id]) : MiqAlert.new
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_valid_record? is too high. [47/11] Open
def alert_valid_record?(alert)
if alert.expression.nil?
add_flash(_("A valid expression must be present"), :error)
end
unless display_driving_event?
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_build_edit_screen is too high. [47/11] Open
def alert_build_edit_screen
@edit = {}
@edit[:new] = {}
@edit[:current] = {}
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Method alert_field_changed
has 120 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_field_changed
return unless load_edit("miq_alert_edit__#{params[:id]}")
@alert = @edit[:alert_id] ? MiqAlert.find(@edit[:alert_id]) : MiqAlert.new
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method alert_build_edit_screen
has 98 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_edit_screen
@edit = {}
@edit[:new] = {}
@edit[:current] = {}
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method alert_valid_record?
has 93 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_valid_record?(alert)
if alert.expression.nil?
add_flash(_("A valid expression must be present"), :error)
end
unless display_driving_event?
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_build_exp_options_info is too high. [24/11] Open
def alert_build_exp_options_info
MiqAlert.expression_options(@edit[:new][:expression][:eval_method]).each do |eo|
case eo[:name]
when :ems_id
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Class MiqAlertController
has 25 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class MiqAlertController < ApplicationController
before_action :check_privileges
before_action :get_session_data
after_action :cleanup_action
after_action :set_session_data
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method alert_set_record_vars
has a Cognitive Complexity of 20 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_set_record_vars(alert)
alert.description = @edit[:new][:description]
alert.enabled = @edit[:new][:enabled]
alert.severity = @edit[:new][:severity]
alert.db = @edit[:new][:db]
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 alert_build_exp_options_info
has a Cognitive Complexity of 20 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_exp_options_info
MiqAlert.expression_options(@edit[:new][:expression][:eval_method]).each do |eo|
case eo[:name]
when :ems_id
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_build_pulldowns is too high. [18/11] Open
def alert_build_pulldowns
@sb[:alert] ||= {}
# :event_types
unless @sb[:alert][:events] # Only create this once
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Method alert_build_pulldowns
has a Cognitive Complexity of 18 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_pulldowns
@sb[:alert] ||= {}
# :event_types
unless @sb[:alert][:events] # Only create this once
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_set_record_vars is too high. [17/11] Open
def alert_set_record_vars(alert)
alert.description = @edit[:new][:description]
alert.enabled = @edit[:new][:enabled]
alert.severity = @edit[:new][:severity]
alert.db = @edit[:new][:db]
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Cyclomatic complexity for show is too high. [17/11] Open
def show
super
@alert = @record
@email_to = []
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_"
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Method show
has a Cognitive Complexity of 17 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def show
super
@alert = @record
@email_to = []
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_"
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Cyclomatic complexity for alert_edit_save_add is too high. [12/11] Open
def alert_edit_save_add
id = params[:id] && params[:button] != "add" ? params[:id] : "new"
return unless load_edit("miq_alert_edit__#{id}")
alert = @alert = @edit[:alert_id] ? MiqAlert.find(@edit[:alert_id]) : MiqAlert.new
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
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
Method alert_edit_save_add
has a Cognitive Complexity of 14 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_edit_save_add
id = params[:id] && params[:button] != "add" ? params[:id] : "new"
return unless load_edit("miq_alert_edit__#{id}")
alert = @alert = @edit[:alert_id] ? MiqAlert.find(@edit[:alert_id]) : MiqAlert.new
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 alert_build_pulldowns
has 39 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_pulldowns
@sb[:alert] ||= {}
# :event_types
unless @sb[:alert][:events] # Only create this once
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method alert_build_exp_options_info
has 37 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_exp_options_info
MiqAlert.expression_options(@edit[:new][:expression][:eval_method]).each do |eo|
case eo[:name]
when :ems_id
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method alert_set_record_vars
has 32 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_set_record_vars(alert)
alert.description = @edit[:new][:description]
alert.enabled = @edit[:new][:enabled]
alert.severity = @edit[:new][:severity]
alert.db = @edit[:new][:db]
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method show
has 29 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def show
super
@alert = @record
@email_to = []
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_"
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method edit
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def edit
@_params[:pressed] ||= "miq_alert_edit"
assert_privileges(params[:pressed]) if params[:pressed]
case params[:button]
when "cancel"
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 alert_build_snmp_variables
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def alert_build_snmp_variables
@edit[:new][:snmp][:snmp_version] = "v1" if @edit[:new][:snmp][:snmp_version].blank?
@edit[:snmp_var_types] = MiqSnmp.available_types
@edit[:new][:snmp][:variables] ||= []
10.times do |i|
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
if params[:button] == "add_email"
@edit[:new][:email][:to] ||= []
@edit[:new][:email][:to].push(@edit[:email]) unless @edit[:email].blank? || @edit[:new][:email][:to].include?(@edit[:email])
@edit[:new][:email][:to].sort!
@edit[:email] = nil
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 56.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
10.times do |i|
@edit[:new][:snmp][:variables][i] ||= {}
@edit[:new][:snmp][:variables][i][:oid] ||= ""
@edit[:new][:snmp][:variables][i][:var_type] ||= "<None>"
@edit[:new][:snmp][:variables][i][:value] ||= ""
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 55.
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
if params[:user_email]
@edit[:new][:email][:to] ||= []
@edit[:new][:email][:to].push(params[:user_email])
@edit[:new][:email][:to].sort!
@edit[:user_emails].delete(params[:user_email])
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 40.
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
@edit[:new][:expression] = {:eval_method => @edit[:expression_types].invert.sort.to_a.first.last,
:mode => "internal"}
@edit[:new][:expression][:options] = {}
@edit[:expression_options] = MiqAlert.expression_options(@edit[:new][:expression][:eval_method])
alert_build_exp_options_info
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 39.
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
@edit[:new][:expression] = {:eval_method => @edit[:expression_types].invert.sort.to_a.first.last, :mode => "internal"}
@edit[:new][:expression][:options] = {}
@edit[:expression_options] = MiqAlert.expression_options(@edit[:new][:expression][:eval_method])
alert_build_exp_options_info
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 39.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
case params[:button]
when "cancel"
alert_edit_cancel
when "save", "add"
alert_edit_save_add
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 35.
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
@edit[:new][:email][:to].each_with_index do |e, _e_idx|
u = User.find_by(:email => e)
@email_to[e] = u ? "#{u.name} (#{e})" : e
end
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_" # Check for hourly timer event
@edit[:new][:exp_event] = @alert.responds_to_events
else
exp_event = MiqEventDefinition.find_by(:name => @alert.responds_to_events)
@edit[:new][:exp_event] = exp_event.nil? ? nil : exp_event.id
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
@edit[:new][:email][:to].each_with_index do |e, _e_idx|
u = User.find_by(:email => e)
@email_to[e] = u ? "#{u.name} (#{e})" : e
end
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_" # Check for hourly timer event
@edit[:new][:exp_event] = @alert.responds_to_events
else
exp_event = MiqEventDefinition.find_by(:name => @alert.responds_to_events)
@edit[:new][:exp_event] = exp_event.nil? ? nil : exp_event.id
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
@alert.options[:notifications][:email][:to].each do |to|
user = User.find_by(:email => to)
@email_to.push(user ? "#{user.name} (#{to})" : to)
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
alert.responds_to_events = if @edit[:new][:exp_event] == "_hourly_timer_"
@edit[:new][:exp_event]
elsif @edit[:new][:exp_event]&.positive?
MiqEventDefinition.find(@edit[:new][:exp_event]).name
end
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 30.
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
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
alert.responds_to_events = if @edit[:new][:exp_event] == "_hourly_timer_"
@edit[:new][:exp_event]
elsif @edit[:new][:exp_event]&.positive?
MiqEventDefinition.find(@edit[:new][:exp_event]).name
end
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
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 30.
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
Duplicate branch body detected. Open
elsif @alert.expression.kind_of?(Hash) && @alert.expression[:eval_method] == "nothing"
if @alert.responds_to_events == "_hourly_timer_" # Check for hourly timer event
@edit[:new][:exp_event] = @alert.responds_to_events
else
exp_event = MiqEventDefinition.find_by(:name => @alert.responds_to_events)
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Checks that there are no repeated bodies
within if/unless
, case-when
, case-in
and rescue
constructs.
With IgnoreLiteralBranches: true
, branches are not registered
as offenses if they return a basic literal value (string, symbol,
integer, float, rational, complex, true
, false
, or nil
), or
return an array, hash, regexp or range that only contains one of
the above basic literal values.
With IgnoreConstantBranches: true
, branches are not registered
as offenses if they return a constant value.
Example:
# bad
if foo
do_foo
do_something_else
elsif bar
do_foo
do_something_else
end
# good
if foo || bar
do_foo
do_something_else
end
# bad
case x
when foo
do_foo
when bar
do_foo
else
do_something_else
end
# good
case x
when foo, bar
do_foo
else
do_something_else
end
# bad
begin
do_something
rescue FooError
handle_error
rescue BarError
handle_error
end
# good
begin
do_something
rescue FooError, BarError
handle_error
end
Example: IgnoreLiteralBranches: true
# good
case size
when "small" then 100
when "medium" then 250
when "large" then 1000
else 250
end
Example: IgnoreConstantBranches: true
# good
case size
when "small" then SMALL_SIZE
when "medium" then MEDIUM_SIZE
when "large" then LARGE_SIZE
else MEDIUM_SIZE
end