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

NPathComplexity

Since: 0.1

The NPath complexity of a method is the number of acyclic execution paths through that method. A threshold of 200 is generally considered the point where measures should be taken to reduce complexity.

Example

class Foo {
    function bar() {
        // lots of complicated code
    }
}

Source https://phpmd.org/rules/codesize.html#npathcomplexity

CyclomaticComplexity

Since: 0.1

Complexity is determined by the number of decision points in a method plus one for the method entry. The decision points are 'if', 'while', 'for', and 'case labels'. Generally, 1-4 is low complexity, 5-7 indicates moderate complexity, 8-10 is high complexity, and 11+ is very high complexity.

Example

// Cyclomatic Complexity = 11
class Foo {
1   public function example() {
2       if ($a == $b) {
3           if ($a1 == $b1) {
                fiddle();
4           } elseif ($a2 == $b2) {
                fiddle();
            } else {
                fiddle();
            }
5       } elseif ($c == $d) {
6           while ($c == $d) {
                fiddle();
            }
7        } elseif ($e == $f) {
8           for ($n = 0; $n < $h; $n++) {
                fiddle();
            }
        } else {
            switch ($z) {
9               case 1:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
10              case 2:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
11              case 3:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
                default:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
            }
        }
    }
}

Source https://phpmd.org/rules/codesize.html#cyclomaticcomplexity

CyclomaticComplexity

Since: 0.1

Complexity is determined by the number of decision points in a method plus one for the method entry. The decision points are 'if', 'while', 'for', and 'case labels'. Generally, 1-4 is low complexity, 5-7 indicates moderate complexity, 8-10 is high complexity, and 11+ is very high complexity.

Example

// Cyclomatic Complexity = 11
class Foo {
1   public function example() {
2       if ($a == $b) {
3           if ($a1 == $b1) {
                fiddle();
4           } elseif ($a2 == $b2) {
                fiddle();
            } else {
                fiddle();
            }
5       } elseif ($c == $d) {
6           while ($c == $d) {
                fiddle();
            }
7        } elseif ($e == $f) {
8           for ($n = 0; $n < $h; $n++) {
                fiddle();
            }
        } else {
            switch ($z) {
9               case 1:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
10              case 2:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
11              case 3:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
                default:
                    fiddle();
                    break;
            }
        }
    }
}

Source https://phpmd.org/rules/codesize.html#cyclomaticcomplexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a function is to understand. Functions with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Having too many return statements in a function increases the function's essential complexity because the flow of execution is broken each time a return statement is encountered. This makes it harder to read and understand the logic of the function.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function myFunction(){ // Noncompliant as there are 4 return statements
  if (condition1) {
    return true;
  } else {
    if (condition2) {
      return false;
    } else {
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
}

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a function is to understand. Functions with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

The requirement for a final case default clause is defensive programming. The clause should either take appropriate action, or contain a suitable comment as to why no action is taken. Even when the switch covers all current values of an enum, a default case should still be used because there is no guarantee that the enum won't be extended.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch ($param) {  //missing default clause
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
}

switch ($param) {
  default: // default clause should be the last one
    error();
    break;
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
}

Compliant Solution

switch ($param) {
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
  default:
    error();
    break;
}

See

• MISRA C:2004, 15.0 - The MISRA C switch syntax shall be used.
• MISRA C:2004, 15.3 - The final clause of a switch statement shall be the default clause
• MISRA C++:2008, 6-4-3 - A switch statement shall be a well-formed switch statement.
• MISRA C++:2008, 6-4-6 - The final clause of a switch statement shall be the default-clause
• MISRA C:2012, 16.1 - All switch statements shall be well-formed
• MISRA C:2012, 16.4 - Every switch statement shall have a default label
• MISRA C:2012, 16.5 - A default label shall appear as either the first or the last switch label of a switch statement
• MITRE, CWE-478 - Missing Default Case in Switch Statement
• CERT, MSC01-C. - Strive for logical completeness
• CERT, MSC01-CPP. - Strive for logical completeness

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source

CamelCaseParameterName

Since: 0.2

It is considered best practice to use the camelCase notation to name parameters.

Example

class ClassName {
    public function doSomething($user_name) {
    }
}

Source