RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern has at least 16 methods Open
class MonthlyRecurrencePattern < AbstractRecurrencePattern
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Too Many Methods
is a special case of LargeClass
.
Example
Given this configuration
TooManyMethods:
max_methods: 3
and this code:
class TooManyMethods
def one; end
def two; end
def three; end
def four; end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:TooManyMethods has at least 4 methods (TooManyMethods)
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_specific_day_of_month refers to 'start' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
if (previous && start.mday >= every_x_day) || (previous.nil? && start.mday > every_x_day)
# there is no next day n in this month, search in next month
start += n.months
end
start.in_time_zone.change(day: every_x_day)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.
Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.
Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.
Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.
Example
Running Reek on:
class Warehouse
def sale_price(item)
(item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
end
end
would report:
Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)
since this:
(item.price - item.rebate)
belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern has no descriptive comment Open
class MonthlyRecurrencePattern < AbstractRecurrencePattern
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_specific_day_of_month calls 'start.mday' 2 times Open
if (previous && start.mday >= every_x_day) || (previous.nil? && start.mday > every_x_day)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_relative_day_of_month performs a nil-check Open
if the_next.nil? || the_next <= start
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_specific_day_of_month performs a nil-check Open
if (previous && start.mday >= every_x_day) || (previous.nil? && start.mday > every_x_day)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_relative_day_of_month has the parameter name 'n' Open
def find_relative_day_of_month(start, n)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Parameter Name
is a parameter name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#get_next_date has the variable name 'n' Open
n = get(:every_other2)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#find_specific_day_of_month has the parameter name 'n' Open
def find_specific_day_of_month(previous, start, n)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Parameter Name
is a parameter name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
RecurringTodos::MonthlyRecurrencePattern#every_x_month2 has the name 'every_x_month2' Open
def every_x_month2
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Method Name
is a method name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
TODO found Open
# TODO: if there is still no match, start will be set to nil. if we ever
- Exclude checks
Use get(:recurrence_selector).zero?
instead of get(:recurrence_selector) == 0
. Open
get(:recurrence_selector) == 0
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==
,
>
, <
) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative.
These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods.
The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.
The cop disregards #nonzero?
as it its value is truthy or falsey,
but not true
and false
, and thus not always interchangeable with
!= 0
.
The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often
populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are
not themselves Interger
polymorphic.
Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)
# bad
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0
# good
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison
# bad
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
# good
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0
Missing magic comment # frozen_string_literal: true
. Open
module RecurringTodos
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop is designed to help upgrade to Ruby 3.0. It will add the
comment # frozen_string_literal: true
to the top of files to
enable frozen string literals. Frozen string literals may be default
in Ruby 3.0. The comment will be added below a shebang and encoding
comment. The frozen string literal comment is only valid in Ruby 2.3+.
Example: EnforcedStyle: when_needed (default)
# The `when_needed` style will add the frozen string literal comment
# to files only when the `TargetRubyVersion` is set to 2.3+.
# bad
module Foo
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Foo
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: always
# The `always` style will always add the frozen string literal comment
# to a file, regardless of the Ruby version or if `freeze` or `<<` are
# called on a string literal.
# bad
module Bar
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Bar
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: never
# The `never` will enforce that the frozen string literal comment does
# not exist in a file.
# bad
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Baz
# ...
end
# good
module Baz
# ...
end
Use recurrence_selector.zero?
instead of recurrence_selector == 0
. Open
if recurrence_selector == 0
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==
,
>
, <
) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative.
These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods.
The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.
The cop disregards #nonzero?
as it its value is truthy or falsey,
but not true
and false
, and thus not always interchangeable with
!= 0
.
The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often
populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are
not themselves Interger
polymorphic.
Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)
# bad
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0
# good
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison
# bad
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
# good
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0
Use get(:recurrence_selector).zero?
instead of get(:recurrence_selector) == 0
. Open
get(:recurrence_selector) == 0 ? get(:every_other2) : 1
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==
,
>
, <
) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative.
These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods.
The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.
The cop disregards #nonzero?
as it its value is truthy or falsey,
but not true
and false
, and thus not always interchangeable with
!= 0
.
The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often
populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are
not themselves Interger
polymorphic.
Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)
# bad
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0
# good
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison
# bad
foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?
# good
foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0