This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop identifies the use of a &block parameter and block.call where yield would do just as well.

Example:

# bad
def method(&block)
  block.call
end
def another(&func)
  func.call 1, 2, 3
end

# good
def method
  yield
end
def another
  yield 1, 2, 3
end

This cop checks the . position in multi-line method calls.

Example: EnforcedStyle: leading (default)

# bad
something.
  mehod

# good
something
  .method

Example: EnforcedStyle: trailing

# bad
something
  .method

# good
something.
  mehod

This cop checks whether the end keywords are aligned properly for do end blocks.

Three modes are supported through the EnforcedStyleAlignWith configuration parameter:

start_of_block : the end shall be aligned with the start of the line where the do appeared.

start_of_line : the end shall be aligned with the start of the line where the expression started.

either (which is the default) : the end is allowed to be in either location. The autofixer will default to start_of_line.

Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: either (default)

# bad

foo.bar
   .each do
     baz
       end

# good

variable = lambda do |i|
  i
end

Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: startofblock

# bad

foo.bar
   .each do
     baz
       end

# good

foo.bar
  .each do
     baz
   end

Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: startofline

# bad

foo.bar
   .each do
     baz
       end

# good

foo.bar
  .each do
     baz
end

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)

This cop enforces the use of a single string formatting utility. Valid options include Kernel#format, Kernel#sprintf and String#%.

The detection of String#% cannot be implemented in a reliable manner for all cases, so only two scenarios are considered - if the first argument is a string literal and if the second argument is an array literal.

Example: EnforcedStyle: format(default)

# bad
puts sprintf('%10s', 'hoge')
puts '%10s' % 'hoge'

# good
puts format('%10s', 'hoge')

Example: EnforcedStyle: sprintf

# bad
puts format('%10s', 'hoge')
puts '%10s' % 'hoge'

# good
puts sprintf('%10s', 'hoge')

Example: EnforcedStyle: percent

# bad
puts format('%10s', 'hoge')
puts sprintf('%10s', 'hoge')

# good
puts '%10s' % 'hoge'

This cops checks for indentation that doesn't use the specified number of spaces.

See also the IndentationConsistency cop which is the companion to this one.

Example:

# bad
class A
 def test
  puts 'hello'
 end
end

# good
class A
  def test
    puts 'hello'
  end
end

Example: IgnoredPatterns: ['^\s*module']

# bad
module A
class B
  def test
  puts 'hello'
  end
end
end

# good
module A
class B
  def test
    puts 'hello'
  end
end
end

This cop checks for chaining of a block after another block that spans multiple lines.

Example:

Thread.list.find_all do |t|
  t.alive?
end.map do |t|
  t.object_id
end

Use a consistent style for named format string tokens.

Note: unannotated style cop only works for strings which are passed as arguments to those methods: sprintf, format, %. The reason is that unannotated format is very similar to encoded URLs or Date/Time formatting strings.

Example: EnforcedStyle: annotated (default)

# bad
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: template

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: unannotated

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%{greeting}', 'Hello')

# good
format('%s', 'Hello')</greeting>

Use a consistent style for named format string tokens.

Note: unannotated style cop only works for strings which are passed as arguments to those methods: sprintf, format, %. The reason is that unannotated format is very similar to encoded URLs or Date/Time formatting strings.

Example: EnforcedStyle: annotated (default)

# bad
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: template

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: unannotated

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%{greeting}', 'Hello')

# good
format('%s', 'Hello')</greeting>

This cop checks for chaining of a block after another block that spans multiple lines.

Example:

Thread.list.find_all do |t|
  t.alive?
end.map do |t|
  t.object_id
end

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)

This cop checks the . position in multi-line method calls.

Example: EnforcedStyle: leading (default)

# bad
something.
  mehod

# good
something
  .method

Example: EnforcedStyle: trailing

# bad
something
  .method

# good
something.
  mehod

This cop checks the . position in multi-line method calls.

Example: EnforcedStyle: leading (default)

# bad
something.
  mehod

# good
something
  .method

Example: EnforcedStyle: trailing

# bad
something
  .method

# good
something.
  mehod

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)

This cop checks for use of the lambda.(args) syntax.

Example: EnforcedStyle: call (default)

# bad lambda.(x, y)

# good lambda.call(x, y)

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# bad lambda.call(x, y)

# good lambda.(x, y)