Class PeopleController
has 22 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class PeopleController < ApplicationController
include DataControllerConfiguration::SharedDataControllerConfiguration
before_action :set_person, only: [:show, :edit, :update, :destroy, :roles, :similar, :api_show]
after_action -> { set_pagination_headers(:people) }, only: [:index, :api_index], if: :json_request?
Use destroy!
instead of destroy
if the return value is not checked. Open
@person.destroy
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop identifies possible cases where Active Record save! or related should be used instead of save because the model might have failed to save and an exception is better than unhandled failure.
This will allow:
- update or save calls, assigned to a variable,
or used as a condition in an if/unless/case statement.
- create calls, assigned to a variable that then has a
call to persisted?
.
- calls if the result is explicitly returned from methods and blocks,
or provided as arguments.
- calls whose signature doesn't look like an ActiveRecord
persistence method.
By default it will also allow implicit returns from methods and blocks.
that behavior can be turned off with AllowImplicitReturn: false
.
You can permit receivers that are giving false positives with
AllowedReceivers: []
Example:
# bad
user.save
user.update(name: 'Joe')
user.find_or_create_by(name: 'Joe')
user.destroy
# good
unless user.save
# ...
end
user.save!
user.update!(name: 'Joe')
user.find_or_create_by!(name: 'Joe')
user.destroy!
user = User.find_or_create_by(name: 'Joe')
unless user.persisted?
# ...
end
def save_user
return user.save
end
Example: AllowImplicitReturn: true (default)
# good
users.each { |u| u.save }
def save_user
user.save
end
Example: AllowImplicitReturn: false
# bad
users.each { |u| u.save }
def save_user
user.save
end
# good
users.each { |u| u.save! }
def save_user
user.save!
end
def save_user
return user.save
end
Example: AllowedReceivers: ['merchant.customers', 'Service::Mailer']
# bad
merchant.create
customers.builder.save
Mailer.create
module Service::Mailer
self.create
end
# good
merchant.customers.create
MerchantService.merchant.customers.destroy
Service::Mailer.update(message: 'Message')
::Service::Mailer.update
Services::Service::Mailer.update(message: 'Message')
Service::Mailer::update
similar
is not explicitly defined on the class. Open
before_action :set_person, only: [:show, :edit, :update, :destroy, :roles, :similar, :api_show]
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that methods specified in the filter's only
or
except
options are defined within the same class or module.
You can technically specify methods of superclass or methods added by mixins on the filter, but these can confuse developers. If you specify methods that are defined in other classes or modules, you should define the filter in that class or module.
If you rely on behaviour defined in the superclass actions, you must
remember to invoke super
in the subclass actions.
Example:
# bad
class LoginController < ApplicationController
before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]
def index
end
end
# good
class LoginController < ApplicationController
before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]
def index
end
def settings
end
def logout
end
end
Example:
# bad
module FooMixin
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
end
end
# good
module FooMixin
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
end
def foo
# something
end
end
Example:
class ContentController < ApplicationController
def update
@content.update(content_attributes)
end
end
class ArticlesController < ContentController
before_action :load_article, only: [:update]
# the cop requires this method, but it relies on behaviour defined
# in the superclass, so needs to invoke `super`
def update
super
end
private
def load_article
@content = Article.find(params[:article_id])
end
end
TODO found Open
# TODO: deprecate!
- Exclude checks
Similar blocks of code found in 16 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def destroy
@person.destroy
respond_to do |format|
if @person.destroyed?
format.html { destroy_redirect @person, notice: 'Person was successfully destroyed.' }
- Read upRead up
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 49.
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
def api_index
@people = Queries::Person::Filter.new(params.merge!(api: true)).all
.order('people.id')
.page(params[:page])
.per(params[:per])
- Read upRead up
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 25.
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