SpeciesFileGroup/taxonworks

View on GitHub
app/models/project.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
1 hr
Test Coverage

Method nuke has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def nuke
    known = ApplicationRecord.subclasses.select {|a| a.column_names.include?('project_id')}.map(&:name)

    known.each do |k|
      next if k.constantize.table_name == 'test_classes' # TODO: a kludge to ignore stubbed classes in testing
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb - About 35 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

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

  def annotators
    known = ApplicationRecord.subclasses.select {|a| a.column_names.include?('project_id')}.map(&:name)

    known.each do |k|
      next if k.safe_constantize.table_name == 'test_classes' # TODO: a kludge to ignore stubbed classes in testing
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.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

Use destroy! instead of destroy if the return value is not checked.
Open

      self.destroy
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by rubocop

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

TODO found
Open

      next if k.safe_constantize.table_name == 'test_classes' # TODO: a kludge to ignore stubbed classes in testing
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by fixme

TODO found
Open

  # TODO: boot load checks
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by fixme

TODO found
Open

      next if k.constantize.table_name == 'test_classes' # TODO: a kludge to ignore stubbed classes in testing
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by fixme

TODO found
Open

    TaxonName.tap {} # TODO: move to require_dependency?
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by fixme

Prefer the new style validations validates :column, uniqueness: value over validates_uniqueness_of.
Open

  validates_uniqueness_of :name
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for the use of old-style attribute validation macros.

Example:

# bad
validates_acceptance_of :foo
validates_confirmation_of :foo
validates_exclusion_of :foo
validates_format_of :foo
validates_inclusion_of :foo
validates_length_of :foo
validates_numericality_of :foo
validates_presence_of :foo
validates_absence_of :foo
validates_size_of :foo
validates_uniqueness_of :foo

# good
validates :foo, acceptance: true
validates :foo, confirmation: true
validates :foo, exclusion: true
validates :foo, format: true
validates :foo, inclusion: true
validates :foo, length: true
validates :foo, numericality: true
validates :foo, presence: true
validates :foo, absence: true
validates :foo, size: true
validates :foo, uniqueness: true

Prefer the new style validations validates :column, presence: value over validates_presence_of.
Open

  validates_presence_of :name
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/project.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for the use of old-style attribute validation macros.

Example:

# bad
validates_acceptance_of :foo
validates_confirmation_of :foo
validates_exclusion_of :foo
validates_format_of :foo
validates_inclusion_of :foo
validates_length_of :foo
validates_numericality_of :foo
validates_presence_of :foo
validates_absence_of :foo
validates_size_of :foo
validates_uniqueness_of :foo

# good
validates :foo, acceptance: true
validates :foo, confirmation: true
validates :foo, exclusion: true
validates :foo, format: true
validates :foo, inclusion: true
validates :foo, length: true
validates :foo, numericality: true
validates :foo, presence: true
validates :foo, absence: true
validates :foo, size: true
validates :foo, uniqueness: true

There are no issues that match your filters.

Category
Status