Method fire
has a Cognitive Complexity of 85 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
@Override
public void fire(final int triggerType, final String triggerName, final String tableName, final Object rowBefore[], final Object rowAfter[]) {
try {
if (triggerType == Trigger.INSERT_BEFORE_ROW || triggerType == Trigger.UPDATE_BEFORE_ROW || triggerType == Trigger.DELETE_BEFORE_ROW) {
if (tableName.equals("Users")) {
- 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 changeUser
has a Cognitive Complexity of 25 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
private void changeUser(final Object oldUser[], final Object newUser[]) {
if (newUser != null && newUser[1] != null && newUser[1].toString().length() > 0) {
String newUsername = newUser[1].toString();
int newAccRight = Users.READ_ONLY;
if (newUser[4] != null && newUser[4] instanceof Integer) {
- 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 fire
has 68 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
@Override
public void fire(final int triggerType, final String triggerName, final String tableName, final Object rowBefore[], final Object rowAfter[]) {
try {
if (triggerType == Trigger.INSERT_BEFORE_ROW || triggerType == Trigger.UPDATE_BEFORE_ROW || triggerType == Trigger.DELETE_BEFORE_ROW) {
if (tableName.equals("Users")) {
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method insertIntoChangeLog
has a Cognitive Complexity of 16 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
private boolean insertIntoChangeLog(final String tablename, final Object[] rowBefore, final Object[] rowAfter, final boolean suppressWarnings) {
if (MainKernel.dontLog || DBKernel.dontLog) return true;
else {
boolean diff = different(rowBefore, rowAfter);
if (!diff) return true;
- 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 MyTrigger.java
has 253 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
/*******************************************************************************
* Copyright (c) 2015 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany
*
* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method different
has a Cognitive Complexity of 15 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
private boolean different(final Object[] rowBefore,
final Object[] rowAfter) {
if (rowBefore == null && rowAfter == null) {
return false;
}
- 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 insertIntoChangeLog
has 40 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
private boolean insertIntoChangeLog(final String tablename, final Object[] rowBefore, final Object[] rowAfter, final boolean suppressWarnings) {
if (MainKernel.dontLog || DBKernel.dontLog) return true;
else {
boolean diff = different(rowBefore, rowAfter);
if (!diff) return true;
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Method fire
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
public void fire(final int triggerType, final String triggerName, final String tableName, final Object rowBefore[], final Object rowAfter[]) {
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Avoid too many return
statements within this method. Open
return false;
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
Refactor this method to reduce its Cognitive Complexity from 25 to the 15 allowed. Open
private void changeUser(final Object oldUser[], final Object newUser[]) {
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.
See
Refactor this method to reduce its Cognitive Complexity from 16 to the 15 allowed. Open
private boolean different(final Object[] rowBefore,
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.
See
Refactor this method to reduce its Cognitive Complexity from 16 to the 15 allowed. Open
private boolean insertIntoChangeLog(final String tablename, final Object[] rowBefore, final Object[] rowAfter, final boolean suppressWarnings) {
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.
See
Refactor this method to reduce its Cognitive Complexity from 85 to the 15 allowed. Open
public void fire(final int triggerType, final String triggerName, final String tableName, final Object rowBefore[], final Object rowAfter[]) {
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.
See
Define a constant instead of duplicating this literal "REVOKE " 3 times. Open
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("DBA") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.
On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.
Noncompliant Code Example
With the default threshold of 3:
public void run() { prepare("action1"); // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times execute("action1"); release("action1"); } @SuppressWarning("all") // Compliant - annotations are excluded private void method1() { /* ... */ } @SuppressWarning("all") private void method2() { /* ... */ } public String method3(String a) { System.out.println("'" + a + "'"); // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded return ""; // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded }
Compliant Solution
private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1"; // Compliant public void run() { prepare(ACTION_1); // Compliant execute(ACTION_1); release(ACTION_1); }
Exceptions
To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.
Define a constant instead of duplicating this literal "GRANT " 3 times. Open
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("GRANT " + MainKernel.delimitL("DBA") + " TO " + MainKernel.delimitL(username), false);
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.
On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.
Noncompliant Code Example
With the default threshold of 3:
public void run() { prepare("action1"); // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times execute("action1"); release("action1"); } @SuppressWarning("all") // Compliant - annotations are excluded private void method1() { /* ... */ } @SuppressWarning("all") private void method2() { /* ... */ } public String method3(String a) { System.out.println("'" + a + "'"); // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded return ""; // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded }
Compliant Solution
private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1"; // Compliant public void run() { prepare(ACTION_1); // Compliant execute(ACTION_1); release(ACTION_1); }
Exceptions
To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.
Make the enclosing method "static" or remove this set. Open
triggerFired = System.currentTimeMillis();
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Correctly updating a static
field from a non-static method is tricky to get right and could easily lead to bugs if there are multiple
class instances and/or multiple threads in play. Ideally, static
fields are only updated from synchronized static
methods.
This rule raises an issue each time a static
field is updated from a non-static method.
Noncompliant Code Example
public class MyClass { private static int count = 0; public void doSomething() { //... count++; // Noncompliant } }
Define a constant instead of duplicating this literal " FROM " 3 times. Open
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("DBA") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.
On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.
Noncompliant Code Example
With the default threshold of 3:
public void run() { prepare("action1"); // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times execute("action1"); release("action1"); } @SuppressWarning("all") // Compliant - annotations are excluded private void method1() { /* ... */ } @SuppressWarning("all") private void method2() { /* ... */ } public String method3(String a) { System.out.println("'" + a + "'"); // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded return ""; // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded }
Compliant Solution
private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1"; // Compliant public void run() { prepare(ACTION_1); // Compliant execute(ACTION_1); release(ACTION_1); }
Exceptions
To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.
Define a constant instead of duplicating this literal " RESTRICT" 3 times. Open
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("DBA") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.
On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.
Noncompliant Code Example
With the default threshold of 3:
public void run() { prepare("action1"); // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times execute("action1"); release("action1"); } @SuppressWarning("all") // Compliant - annotations are excluded private void method1() { /* ... */ } @SuppressWarning("all") private void method2() { /* ... */ } public String method3(String a) { System.out.println("'" + a + "'"); // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded return ""; // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded }
Compliant Solution
private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1"; // Compliant public void run() { prepare(ACTION_1); // Compliant execute(ACTION_1); release(ACTION_1); }
Exceptions
To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.
Use try-with-resources or close this "!Unknown!" in a "finally" clause. Open
PreparedStatement ps = conn.prepareStatement("INSERT INTO " + MainKernel.delimitL("ChangeLog") + " (" + MainKernel.delimitL("ID") + ", "
+ MainKernel.delimitL("Zeitstempel") + ", " + MainKernel.delimitL("Username") + ", " + MainKernel.delimitL("Tabelle") + ", "
+ MainKernel.delimitL("TabellenID") + ", " + MainKernel.delimitL("Alteintrag") + ") VALUES (NEXT VALUE FOR "
+ MainKernel.delimitL("ChangeLogSEQ") + ", ?, ?, ?, ?, ?)");
- Read upRead up
- Create a ticketCreate a ticket
- Exclude checks
Connections, streams, files, and other classes that implement the Closeable
interface or its super-interface,
AutoCloseable
, needs to be closed after use. Further, that close
call must be made in a finally
block otherwise
an exception could keep the call from being made. Preferably, when class implements AutoCloseable
, resource should be created using
"try-with-resources" pattern and will be closed automatically.
Failure to properly close resources will result in a resource leak which could bring first the application and then perhaps the box the application is on to their knees.
Noncompliant Code Example
private void readTheFile() throws IOException { Path path = Paths.get(this.fileName); BufferedReader reader = Files.newBufferedReader(path, this.charset); // ... reader.close(); // Noncompliant // ... Files.lines("input.txt").forEach(System.out::println); // Noncompliant: The stream needs to be closed } private void doSomething() { OutputStream stream = null; try { for (String property : propertyList) { stream = new FileOutputStream("myfile.txt"); // Noncompliant // ... } } catch (Exception e) { // ... } finally { stream.close(); // Multiple streams were opened. Only the last is closed. } }
Compliant Solution
private void readTheFile(String fileName) throws IOException { Path path = Paths.get(fileName); try (BufferedReader reader = Files.newBufferedReader(path, StandardCharsets.UTF_8)) { reader.readLine(); // ... } // .. try (Stream<String> input = Files.lines("input.txt")) { input.forEach(System.out::println); } } private void doSomething() { OutputStream stream = null; try { stream = new FileOutputStream("myfile.txt"); for (String property : propertyList) { // ... } } catch (Exception e) { // ... } finally { stream.close(); } }
Exceptions
Instances of the following classes are ignored by this rule because close
has no effect:
-
java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream
-
java.io.ByteArrayInputStream
-
java.io.CharArrayReader
-
java.io.CharArrayWriter
-
java.io.StringReader
-
java.io.StringWriter
Java 7 introduced the try-with-resources statement, which implicitly closes Closeables
. All resources opened in a try-with-resources
statement are ignored by this rule.
try (BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(fileName))) { //... } catch ( ... ) { //... }
See
- MITRE, CWE-459 - Incomplete Cleanup
- MITRE, CWE-772 - Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
- CERT, FIO04-J. - Release resources when they are no longer needed
- CERT, FIO42-C. - Close files when they are no longer needed
- Try With Resources
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
private Connection getDefaultConnection() {
Connection result = null;
String connStr = "jdbc:default:connection";
try {
result = DriverManager.getConnection(connStr);
- 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 51.
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 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
} else if (oldAccRight == Users.WRITE_ACCESS) {
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("WRITE_ACCESS") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
}
- 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
Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
} else if (oldAccRight == Users.SUPER_WRITE_ACCESS) {
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("SUPER_WRITE_ACCESS") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
} else if (oldAccRight == Users.WRITE_ACCESS) {
- 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
Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
if (oldAccRight == Users.ADMIN) {
success = MainKernel.sendRequest("REVOKE " + MainKernel.delimitL("DBA") + " FROM " + MainKernel.delimitL(username) + " RESTRICT", false);
} else if (oldAccRight == Users.SUPER_WRITE_ACCESS) {
- 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