Sign upLogin

asteris-llc/converge

View on GitHub
Star
resource/unarchive/unarchive.go

Summary

Maintainability
C
1 day
Test Coverage

Method Unarchive.evaluateDuplicates has a Cognitive Complexity of 30 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (u *Unarchive) evaluateDuplicates() error {
    // determine which directory has fewer items in order to minimize operations
    dirA := u.destDir.Name()
    dirB := u.fetchDir.Name()
    filesA := u.destContents
Severity: Minor
Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 1 hr 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 Unarchive.setDirsAndContents has 8 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
Open

func (u *Unarchive) setDirsAndContents() (bool, error) {
    var err error

    // set the unarchive destination directory
    u.destDir, err = os.Open(u.Destination)
Severity: Major
Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 50 mins to fix

    Method Unarchive.applyWithContext has 8 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
    Open

    func (u *Unarchive) applyWithContext(ctx context.Context) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
    status := resource.NewStatus()
    defer os.RemoveAll(u.fetchLoc)

    err := u.diff(status)
    Severity: Major
    Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 50 mins to fix

      Method Unarchive.evaluateDuplicates has 7 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
      Open

      func (u *Unarchive) evaluateDuplicates() error {
    // determine which directory has fewer items in order to minimize operations
    dirA := u.destDir.Name()
    dirB := u.fetchDir.Name()
    filesA := u.destContents
      Severity: Major
      Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 45 mins to fix

        Method Unarchive.isMemAvailable has 6 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
        Open

        func (u *Unarchive) isMemAvailable() (bool, error) {
    var (
        destStat syscall.Statfs_t
        tmpStat  syscall.Statfs_t
    )
        Severity: Major
        Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 40 mins to fix

          Method Unarchive.readWrite has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
          Open

          func (u *Unarchive) readWrite(file string) error {
    fileName := strings.TrimPrefix(file, u.fetchDir.Name())

    fStat, err := os.Stat(file)
    if err != nil {
          Severity: Major
          Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 35 mins to fix

            Method Unarchive.copyFile has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
            Open

            func (u *Unarchive) copyFile(from, to string) error {
    src, err := os.Open(from)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
            Severity: Major
            Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go - About 35 mins to fix

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

              func (u *Unarchive) Check(ctx context.Context, r resource.Renderer) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
    ch := make(chan response, 1)

    go func(ctx context.Context, r resource.Renderer) {
        status, err := u.checkWithContext(ctx, r)
              Severity: Major
              Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go and 1 other location - About 1 hr to fix
              resource/file/fetch/fetch.go on lines 84..98

              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 177.

              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

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

              func (u *Unarchive) Apply(ctx context.Context) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
    ch := make(chan response, 1)

    go func(ctx context.Context) {
        status, err := u.applyWithContext(ctx)
              Severity: Major
              Found in resource/unarchive/unarchive.go and 1 other location - About 1 hr to fix
              resource/file/fetch/fetch.go on lines 101..115

              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 157.

              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

              There are no issues that match your filters.

              Category
              Status