Sign upLogin

SpeciesFileGroup/taxonworks

View on GitHub
Star
app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
2 hrs
Test Coverage

Method family_by_genus_summary has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def family_by_genus_summary(scope)
    r = { }

    scope.find_each do |o|
      i = o.biological_association_subject.taxonomy
Severity: Minor
Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb - About 25 mins to fix

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

Tagging a string as html safe may be a security risk.
Open

      link_to(object_tag(biological_association.biological_association_object).html_safe, biological_association.biological_association_object.metamorphosize)
Severity: Minor
Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for the use of output safety calls like html_safe, raw, and safe_concat. These methods do not escape content. They simply return a SafeBuffer containing the content as is. Instead, use safe_join to join content and escape it and concat to concatenate content and escape it, ensuring its safety.

Example:

user_content = "hi"

# bad
"
#{user_content}
".html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
hi
"

# good
content_tag(:p, user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
<b>hi</b>
"

# bad
out = ""
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out.html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
  • hi
    • 

  • hi
    • "

# good
out = []
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
safe_join(out)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
  • <b>hi</b>
    • 

  • <b>hi</b>
    • "

# bad
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.safe_concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    trusted_content
    
hi"

# good
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
    trusted_content
    <b>hi</b>"

# safe, though maybe not good style
out = "trusted content"
result = out.concat(user_content)
# => String "trusted contenthi"
# because when rendered in ERB the String will be escaped:
# <%= result %>
# => trusted content<b>hi</b>

# bad
(user_content + " " + content_tag(:span, user_content)).html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "hi <span><b>hi</b></span>"

# good
safe_join([user_content, " ", content_tag(:span, user_content)])
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "<b>hi</b> <span>&lt;b&gt;hi&lt;/b&gt;</span>"

    Tagging a string as html safe may be a security risk.
    Open

          link_to(content_tag(:span, biological_relationship_tag(biological_association.biological_relationship), class: :notice).html_safe, biological_association) + ' ' +
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb by rubocop

    This cop checks for the use of output safety calls like html_safe, raw, and safe_concat. These methods do not escape content. They simply return a SafeBuffer containing the content as is. Instead, use safe_join to join content and escape it and concat to concatenate content and escape it, ensuring its safety.

    Example:

    user_content = "hi"

# bad
"
    #{user_content}
    ".html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    hi
    "

# good
content_tag(:p, user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    <b>hi</b>
    "

# bad
out = ""
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out.html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
  • hi
    • 

  • hi
    • "

# good
out = []
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
safe_join(out)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
  • <b>hi</b>
    • 

  • <b>hi</b>
    • "

# bad
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.safe_concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    trusted_content
    
hi"

# good
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
    trusted_content
    <b>hi</b>"

# safe, though maybe not good style
out = "trusted content"
result = out.concat(user_content)
# => String "trusted contenthi"
# because when rendered in ERB the String will be escaped:
# <%= result %>
# => trusted content<b>hi</b>

# bad
(user_content + " " + content_tag(:span, user_content)).html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "hi <span><b>hi</b></span>"

# good
safe_join([user_content, " ", content_tag(:span, user_content)])
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "<b>hi</b> <span>&lt;b&gt;hi&lt;/b&gt;</span>"

    Tagging a string as html safe may be a security risk.
    Open

        link_to(object_tag(biological_association.biological_association_subject).html_safe, biological_association.biological_association_subject.metamorphosize) + ' ' +
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb by rubocop

    This cop checks for the use of output safety calls like html_safe, raw, and safe_concat. These methods do not escape content. They simply return a SafeBuffer containing the content as is. Instead, use safe_join to join content and escape it and concat to concatenate content and escape it, ensuring its safety.

    Example:

    user_content = "hi"

# bad
"
    #{user_content}
    ".html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    hi
    "

# good
content_tag(:p, user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    <b>hi</b>
    "

# bad
out = ""
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out << "
  • #{user_content}
    • "
out.html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
  • hi
    • 

  • hi
    • "

# good
out = []
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
out << content_tag(:li, user_content)
safe_join(out)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
  • <b>hi</b>
    • 

  • <b>hi</b>
    • "

# bad
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.safe_concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "
    trusted_content
    
hi"

# good
out = "
    trusted content
    ".html_safe
out.concat(user_content)
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "
    trusted_content
    <b>hi</b>"

# safe, though maybe not good style
out = "trusted content"
result = out.concat(user_content)
# => String "trusted contenthi"
# because when rendered in ERB the String will be escaped:
# <%= result %>
# => trusted content<b>hi</b>

# bad
(user_content + " " + content_tag(:span, user_content)).html_safe
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer "hi <span><b>hi</b></span>"

# good
safe_join([user_content, " ", content_tag(:span, user_content)])
# => ActiveSupport::SafeBuffer
#    "<b>hi</b> <span>&lt;b&gt;hi&lt;/b&gt;</span>"

    Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
    Open

           r.merge! %I{order family genus}.inject({}) { |hsh, r| hsh[('object_' + r.to_s).to_sym] = [b.biological_association_object.taxonomy[r.to_s]].flatten.compact.join(' '); hsh }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb and 1 other location - About 25 mins to fix
    app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb on lines 87..87

    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

    Further Reading

    Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
    Open

           r.merge! %I{order family genus}.inject({}) { |hsh, r| hsh[('object_' + r.to_s).to_sym] = [b.biological_association_object.taxonomy[r.to_s]].flatten.compact.join(' '); hsh }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb and 1 other location - About 25 mins to fix
    app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb on lines 57..57

    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

    Further Reading

    Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
    Open

          r = %I{order family genus}.inject({}) { |hsh, r| hsh[('subject_' + r.to_s).to_sym] = [b.biological_association_subject.taxonomy[r.to_s]].flatten.compact.join(' '); hsh }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb and 1 other location - About 25 mins to fix
    app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb on lines 70..70

    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 29.

    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

    Further Reading

    Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
    Open

          r = %I{order family genus}.inject({}) { |hsh, r| hsh[('subject_' + r.to_s).to_sym] = [b.biological_association_subject.taxonomy[r.to_s]].flatten.compact.join(' '); hsh }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb and 1 other location - About 25 mins to fix
    app/helpers/biological_associations_helper.rb on lines 47..47

    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 29.

    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

    Further Reading

    There are no issues that match your filters.

    Category
    Status