Sign upLogin

amazing-print/amazing_print

View on GitHub
Star

Showing 36 of 36 total issues

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

      def method_tuple(method)
        # See http://readruby.chengguangnan.com/methods#method-objects-parameters
        # (mirror: http://archive.is/XguCA#selection-3381.1-3381.11)
        args = method.parameters.inject([]) do |arr, (type, name)|
          name ||= (type == :block ? 'block' : "arg#{arr.size + 1}")
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/base_formatter.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 cast_with_active_support has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

    def cast_with_active_support(object, type)
      cast = cast_without_active_support(object, type)
      if defined?(::ActiveSupport) && defined?(::HashWithIndifferentAccess)
        if (defined?(::ActiveSupport::TimeWithZone) && object.is_a?(::ActiveSupport::TimeWithZone)) || object.is_a?(::Date)
          cast = :active_support_time
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/ext/active_support.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 awesome_ripple_document_instance has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

    def awesome_ripple_document_instance(object)
      return object.inspect unless defined?(::ActiveSupport::OrderedHash)
      return awesome_object(object) if @options[:raw]

      (exclude_assoc = @options[:exclude_assoc]) || @options[:exclude_associations]
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/ext/ripple.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

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

    def colorize?
      AmazingPrint.force_colors ||= false
      AmazingPrint.force_colors || (
        if defined? @colorize_stdout
          @colorize_stdout
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/inspector.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

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

      def align(value, width)
        if options[:multiline]
          indent_option = options[:indent]
          effective_width = width + value.size - colorless_size(value)
          if indent_option.positive?
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/base_formatter.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

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

  def grep(pattern, &blk)
    #
    # The following looks rather insane and I've sent numerous hours trying
    # to figure it out. The problem is that if grep gets called with the
    # block, for example:
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/core_ext/awesome_method_array.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

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

        if options[:multiline]
          "#<#{awesome_instance}\n#{data.join(%(,\n))}\n#{outdent}>"
        else
          "#<#{awesome_instance} #{data.join(', ')}>"
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/object_formatter.rb and 1 other location - About 15 mins to fix
lib/amazing_print/formatters/struct_formatter.rb on lines 51..54

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

Further Reading

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

        if options[:multiline]
          "#<#{awesome_instance}\n#{data.join(%(,\n))}\n#{outdent}>"
        else
          "#<#{awesome_instance} #{data.join(', ')}>"
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/struct_formatter.rb and 1 other location - About 15 mins to fix
lib/amazing_print/formatters/object_formatter.rb on lines 51..54

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

Further Reading

Prefer annotated tokens (like %<foo>s</foo>) over unannotated tokens (like %s).
Open

      term_bright_seq = "\e[1;#{i + 30}m%s\e[0m"
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/colors.rb by rubocop

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>

Prefer annotated tokens (like %<foo>s</foo>) over unannotated tokens (like %s).
Open

        @stat.mtime.strftime '%Y-%m-%d     %H:%M'
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/mswin_helper.rb by rubocop

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>

Prefer annotated tokens (like %<foo>s</foo>) over unannotated tokens (like %s).
Open

      html_normal_seq = %(<kbd style="color:#{shade}">%s</kbd>)
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/colors.rb by rubocop

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>

Redundant curly braces around a hash parameter.
Open

               {
                 Mode: mode,
                 LastWriteTime: last_write_time,
                 Length: length,
                 Name: name
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/mswin_helper.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for braces around the last parameter in a method call if the last parameter is a hash. It supports braces, no_braces and context_dependent styles.

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# The `braces` style enforces braces around all method
# parameters that are hashes.

# bad
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_braces (default)

# The `no_braces` style checks that the last parameter doesn't
# have braces around it.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: context_dependent

# The `context_dependent` style checks that the last parameter
# doesn't have braces around it, but requires braces if the
# second to last parameter is also a hash literal.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 1, b: 2})

Use match? instead of =~ when MatchData is not used.
Open

  if ENV['BUNDLE_GEMFILE'] =~ /gemfiles/
Severity: Minor
Found in Rakefile by rubocop

In Ruby 2.4, String#match?, Regexp#match? and Symbol#match? have been added. The methods are faster than match. Because the methods avoid creating a MatchData object or saving backref. So, when MatchData is not used, use match? instead of match.

Example:

# bad
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# bad
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match?(/re/)
    do_something
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x =~ /re/
    do_something(Regexp.last_match)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if x.match(/re/)
    do_something($~)
  end
end

# good
def foo
  if /re/ === x
    do_something($~)
  end
end

Prefer annotated tokens (like %<foo>s</foo>) over unannotated tokens (like %s).
Open

      html_bright_seq = %(<kbd style="color:#{color}">%s</kbd>)
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/colors.rb by rubocop

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>

Prefer annotated tokens (like %<foo>s</foo>) over unannotated tokens (like %s).
Open

      term_normal_seq = "\e[0;#{i + 30}m%s\e[0m"
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/colors.rb by rubocop

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>

Reverse the order of the operands __FILE__ == $PROGRAM_NAME.
Open

puts AmazingPrint::Formatters::GetChildItem.new ARGV[0] if __FILE__ == $PROGRAM_NAME
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/amazing_print/formatters/mswin_helper.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for Yoda conditions, i.e. comparison operations where readability is reduced because the operands are not ordered the same way as they would be ordered in spoken English.

Example: EnforcedStyle: allcomparisonoperators (default)

# bad
99 == foo
"bar" != foo
42 >= foo
10 < bar

# good
foo == 99
foo == "bar"
foo <= 42
bar > 10

Example: EnforcedStyle: equalityoperatorsonly

# bad
99 == foo
"bar" != foo

# good
99 >= foo
3 < a && a < 5
Severity
Category
Status
Source
Language