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

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

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

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

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

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

Checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

Checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

Checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

Checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

In Ruby 2.4, String#match?, Regexp#match? and Symbol#match? have been added. The methods are faster than match. Because the methods avoid creating a MatchData object or saving backref. So, when MatchData is not used, use match? instead of match.

Example:

# bad
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match?(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something(Regexp.last_match)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something($~)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something($~)
  end
end

This cop identifies places where gsub can be replaced by tr or delete.

Example:

# bad
'abc'.gsub('b', 'd')
'abc'.gsub('a', '')
'abc'.gsub(/a/, 'd')
'abc'.gsub!('a', 'd')

# good
'abc'.gsub(/.*/, 'a')
'abc'.gsub(/a+/, 'd')
'abc'.tr('b', 'd')
'a b c'.delete(' ')

In Ruby 2.4, String#match?, Regexp#match? and Symbol#match? have been added. The methods are faster than match. Because the methods avoid creating a MatchData object or saving backref. So, when MatchData is not used, use match? instead of match.

Example:

# bad
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match?(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something(Regexp.last_match)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something($~)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something($~)
  end
end

In Ruby 2.4, String#match?, Regexp#match? and Symbol#match? have been added. The methods are faster than match. Because the methods avoid creating a MatchData object or saving backref. So, when MatchData is not used, use match? instead of match.

Example:

# bad
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match?(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something(Regexp.last_match)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something($~)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something($~)
  end
end

Checks for private or protected access modifiers which are applied to a singleton method. These access modifiers do not make singleton methods private/protected. private_class_method can be used for that.

Example:

# bad

class C
  private

  def self.method
    puts 'hi'
  end
end

Example:

# good

class C
  def self.method
    puts 'hi'
  end

  private_class_method :method
end

Example:

# good

class C
  class << self
    private

    def method
      puts 'hi'
    end
  end
end

Checks for unused method arguments.

Example:

# bad
def some_method(used, unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

# good
def some_method(used, _unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: false (default)

# bad
def do_something(used, unused: 42)
  used
end

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: true

# good
def do_something(used, unused: 42)
  used
end

Example: IgnoreEmptyMethods: true (default)

# good
def do_something(unused)
end

Example: IgnoreEmptyMethods: false

# bad
def do_something(unused)
end

Example: IgnoreNotImplementedMethods: true (default)

# good
def do_something(unused)
  raise NotImplementedError
end

def do_something_else(unused)
  fail "TODO"
end

Example: IgnoreNotImplementedMethods: false

# bad
def do_something(unused)
  raise NotImplementedError
end

def do_something_else(unused)
  fail "TODO"
end

Checks for redundant access modifiers, including those with no code, those which are repeated, and leading public modifiers in a class or module body. Conditionally-defined methods are considered as always being defined, and thus access modifiers guarding such methods are not redundant.

This cop has ContextCreatingMethods option. The default setting value is an empty array that means no method is specified. This setting is an array of methods which, when called, are known to create its own context in the module's current access context.

It also has MethodCreatingMethods option. The default setting value is an empty array that means no method is specified. This setting is an array of methods which, when called, are known to create other methods in the module's current access context.

Example:

# bad
class Foo
  public # this is redundant (default access is public)

  def method
  end
end

# bad
class Foo
  # The following is redundant (methods defined on the class'
  # singleton class are not affected by the private modifier)
  private

  def self.method3
  end
end

# bad
class Foo
  protected

  define_method(:method2) do
  end

  protected # this is redundant (repeated from previous modifier)

  [1,2,3].each do |i|
    define_method("foo#{i}") do
    end
  end
end

# bad
class Foo
  private # this is redundant (no following methods are defined)
end

# good
class Foo
  private # this is not redundant (a method is defined)

  def method2
  end
end

# good
class Foo
  # The following is not redundant (conditionally defined methods are
  # considered as always defining a method)
  private

  if condition?
    def method
    end
  end
end

# good
class Foo
  protected # this is not redundant (a method is defined)

  define_method(:method2) do
  end
end

Example: ContextCreatingMethods: concerning

# Lint/UselessAccessModifier:
#   ContextCreatingMethods:
#     - concerning

# good
require 'active_support/concern'
class Foo
  concerning :Bar do
    def some_public_method
    end

    private

    def some_private_method
    end
  end

  # this is not redundant because `concerning` created its own context
  private

  def some_other_private_method
  end
end

Example: MethodCreatingMethods: delegate

# Lint/UselessAccessModifier:
#   MethodCreatingMethods:
#     - delegate

# good
require 'active_support/core_ext/module/delegation'
class Foo
  # this is not redundant because `delegate` creates methods
  private

  delegate :method_a, to: :method_b
end

Checks for the use of Kernel#open and URI.open with dynamic data.

Kernel#open and URI.open enable not only file access but also process invocation by prefixing a pipe symbol (e.g., open("| ls")). So, it may lead to a serious security risk by using variable input to the argument of Kernel#open and URI.open. It would be better to use File.open, IO.popen or URI.parse#open explicitly.

NOTE: open and URI.open with literal strings are not flagged by this cop.

Safety:

This cop could register false positives if open is redefined in a class and then used without a receiver in that class.

Example:

# bad
open(something)
open("| #{something}")
URI.open(something)

# good
File.open(something)
IO.popen(something)
URI.parse(something).open

# good (literal strings)
open("foo.text")
open("| foo")
URI.open("http://example.com")

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 unused block arguments.

Example:

# bad
do_something do |used, unused|
  puts used
end

do_something do |bar|
  puts :foo
end

define_method(:foo) do |bar|
  puts :baz
end

# good
do_something do |used, _unused|
  puts used
end

do_something do
  puts :foo
end

define_method(:foo) do |_bar|
  puts :baz
end

Example: IgnoreEmptyBlocks: true (default)

# good
do_something { |unused| }

Example: IgnoreEmptyBlocks: false

# bad
do_something { |unused| }

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: false (default)

# bad
do_something do |unused: 42|
  foo
end

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: true

# good
do_something do |unused: 42|
  foo
end

Checks for private or protected access modifiers which are applied to a singleton method. These access modifiers do not make singleton methods private/protected. private_class_method can be used for that.

Example:

# bad

class C
  private

  def self.method
    puts 'hi'
  end
end

Example:

# good

class C
  def self.method
    puts 'hi'
  end

  private_class_method :method
end

Example:

# good

class C
  class << self
    private

    def method
      puts 'hi'
    end
  end
end

Checks for unused method arguments.

Example:

# bad
def some_method(used, unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

# good
def some_method(used, _unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: false (default)

# bad
def do_something(used, unused: 42)
  used
end

Example: AllowUnusedKeywordArguments: true

# good
def do_something(used, unused: 42)
  used
end

Example: IgnoreEmptyMethods: true (default)

# good
def do_something(unused)
end

Example: IgnoreEmptyMethods: false

# bad
def do_something(unused)
end

Example: IgnoreNotImplementedMethods: true (default)

# good
def do_something(unused)
  raise NotImplementedError
end

def do_something_else(unused)
  fail "TODO"
end

Example: IgnoreNotImplementedMethods: false

# bad
def do_something(unused)
  raise NotImplementedError
end

def do_something_else(unused)
  fail "TODO"
end