asteris-llc/converge

View on GitHub
resource/user/user.go

Summary

Maintainability
D
2 days
Test Coverage

Method User.DiffMod has a Cognitive Complexity of 37 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (u *User) DiffMod(status *resource.Status, currUser *user.User) (*ModUserOptions, error) {
    options := new(ModUserOptions)

    // Check for differences between currUser and the desired modifications
    if u.NewUsername != "" {
Severity: Minor
Found in resource/user/user.go - About 3 hrs 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 User.Apply has a Cognitive Complexity of 35 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (u *User) Apply(context.Context) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
    // lookup the user by name
    // ErrUnsupported is returned if the system is not supported
    // Lookup returns user.UnknownUserError if the user is not found
    userByName, nameErr := u.system.Lookup(u.Username)
Severity: Minor
Found in resource/user/user.go - About 2 hrs 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 User.DiffMod has 79 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (u *User) DiffMod(status *resource.Status, currUser *user.User) (*ModUserOptions, error) {
    options := new(ModUserOptions)

    // Check for differences between currUser and the desired modifications
    if u.NewUsername != "" {
Severity: Major
Found in resource/user/user.go - About 2 hrs to fix

    Method User.DiffAdd has 65 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

    func (u *User) DiffAdd(status *resource.Status) (*AddUserOptions, error) {
        options := new(AddUserOptions)
    
        // if a group exists with the same name as the user being added, a groupname
        // must also be indicated so the user may be added to that group
    Severity: Minor
    Found in resource/user/user.go - About 1 hr to fix

      Method User.Apply has 61 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

      func (u *User) Apply(context.Context) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
          // lookup the user by name
          // ErrUnsupported is returned if the system is not supported
          // Lookup returns user.UnknownUserError if the user is not found
          userByName, nameErr := u.system.Lookup(u.Username)
      Severity: Minor
      Found in resource/user/user.go - About 1 hr to fix

        Method User.Apply has 9 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
        Open

        func (u *User) Apply(context.Context) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
            // lookup the user by name
            // ErrUnsupported is returned if the system is not supported
            // Lookup returns user.UnknownUserError if the user is not found
            userByName, nameErr := u.system.Lookup(u.Username)
        Severity: Major
        Found in resource/user/user.go - About 55 mins to fix

          Method User.DiffMod has 7 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
          Open

          func (u *User) DiffMod(status *resource.Status, currUser *user.User) (*ModUserOptions, error) {
              options := new(ModUserOptions)
          
              // Check for differences between currUser and the desired modifications
              if u.NewUsername != "" {
          Severity: Major
          Found in resource/user/user.go - About 45 mins to fix

            Method User.Check has 6 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
            Open

            func (u *User) Check(context.Context, resource.Renderer) (resource.TaskStatus, error) {
                // lookup the user by name
                // ErrUnsupported is returned if the system is not supported
                // Lookup returns user.UnknownUserError if the user is not found
                userByName, nameErr := u.system.Lookup(u.Username)
            Severity: Major
            Found in resource/user/user.go - About 40 mins to fix

              Method User.DiffAdd has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
              Open

              func (u *User) DiffAdd(status *resource.Status) (*AddUserOptions, error) {
                  options := new(AddUserOptions)
              
                  // if a group exists with the same name as the user being added, a groupname
                  // must also be indicated so the user may be added to that group
              Severity: Major
              Found in resource/user/user.go - About 35 mins to fix

                Method User.DiffAdd has a Cognitive Complexity of 21 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
                Open

                func (u *User) DiffAdd(status *resource.Status) (*AddUserOptions, error) {
                    options := new(AddUserOptions)
                
                    // if a group exists with the same name as the user being added, a groupname
                    // must also be indicated so the user may be added to that group
                Severity: Minor
                Found in resource/user/user.go - 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

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

                    case u.GID != "":
                        grp, err := user.LookupGroupId(u.GID)
                        if err != nil {
                            status.RaiseLevel(resource.StatusCantChange)
                            return nil, fmt.Errorf("group gid %s does not exist", u.GID)
                Severity: Minor
                Found in resource/user/user.go and 1 other location - About 55 mins to fix
                resource/user/user.go on lines 287..295

                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 127.

                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

                    case u.GroupName != "":
                        grp, err := user.LookupGroup(u.GroupName)
                        if err != nil {
                            status.RaiseLevel(resource.StatusCantChange)
                            return nil, fmt.Errorf("group %s does not exist", u.GroupName)
                Severity: Minor
                Found in resource/user/user.go and 1 other location - About 55 mins to fix
                resource/user/user.go on lines 296..304

                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 127.

                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