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.

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.

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

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 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.

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 places where Hash#merge! can be replaced by Hash#[]=.

Example:

hash.merge!(a: 1)
hash.merge!({'key' => 'value'})
hash.merge!(a: 1, b: 2)

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 46.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

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 46.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

This cop looks for inject / reduce calls where the passed in object is returned at the end and so could be replaced by eachwithobject without the need to return the object at the end.

However, we can't replace with eachwithobject if the accumulator parameter is assigned to within the block.

Example:

# bad
[1, 2].inject({}) { |a, e| a[e] = e; a }

# good
[1, 2].each_with_object({}) { |e, a| a[e] = e }

Checks for uses of if with a negated condition. Only ifs without else are considered. There are three different styles:

- both
- prefix
- postfix

Example: EnforcedStyle: both (default)

# enforces `unless` for `prefix` and `postfix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefix

# enforces `unless` for just `prefix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# good

bar if !foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: postfix

# enforces `unless` for just `postfix` conditionals

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

# good

if !foo
  bar
end

This cops checks if empty lines around the bodies of modules match the configuration.

Example: EnforcedStyle: empty_lines

# good

module Foo

  def bar
    # ...
  end

end

Example: EnforcedStyle: emptylinesexcept_namespace

# good

module Foo
  module Bar

    # ...

  end
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: emptylinesspecial

# good
module Foo

  def bar; end

end

Example: EnforcedStyle: noemptylines (default)

# good

module Foo
  def bar
    # ...
  end
end

Checks that braces used for hash literals have or don't have surrounding space depending on configuration.

Example: EnforcedStyle: space

# The `space` style enforces that hash literals have
# surrounding space.

# bad
h = {a: 1, b: 2}

# good
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_space

# The `no_space` style enforces that hash literals have
# no surrounding space.

# bad
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }

# good
h = {a: 1, b: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: compact

# The `compact` style normally requires a space inside
# hash braces, with the exception that successive left
# braces or right braces are collapsed together in nested hashes.

# bad
h = { a: { b: 2 } }

# good
h = { a: { b: 2 }}

Checks that braces used for hash literals have or don't have surrounding space depending on configuration.

Example: EnforcedStyle: space

# The `space` style enforces that hash literals have
# surrounding space.

# bad
h = {a: 1, b: 2}

# good
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_space

# The `no_space` style enforces that hash literals have
# no surrounding space.

# bad
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }

# good
h = {a: 1, b: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: compact

# The `compact` style normally requires a space inside
# hash braces, with the exception that successive left
# braces or right braces are collapsed together in nested hashes.

# bad
h = { a: { b: 2 } }

# good
h = { a: { b: 2 }}

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})

This cop looks for inject / reduce calls where the passed in object is returned at the end and so could be replaced by eachwithobject without the need to return the object at the end.

However, we can't replace with eachwithobject if the accumulator parameter is assigned to within the block.

Example:

# bad
[1, 2].inject({}) { |a, e| a[e] = e; a }

# good
[1, 2].each_with_object({}) { |e, a| a[e] = e }

This cop looks for inject / reduce calls where the passed in object is returned at the end and so could be replaced by eachwithobject without the need to return the object at the end.

However, we can't replace with eachwithobject if the accumulator parameter is assigned to within the block.

Example:

# bad
[1, 2].inject({}) { |a, e| a[e] = e; a }

# good
[1, 2].each_with_object({}) { |e, a| a[e] = e }

This cop checks for missing top-level documentation of classes and modules. Classes with no body are exempt from the check and so are namespace modules - modules that have nothing in their bodies except classes, other modules, or constant definitions.

The documentation requirement is annulled if the class or module has a "#:nodoc:" comment next to it. Likewise, "#:nodoc: all" does the same for all its children.

Example:

# bad
class Person
  # ...
end

# good
# Description/Explanation of Person class
class Person
  # ...
end

Checks for uses of if with a negated condition. Only ifs without else are considered. There are three different styles:

- both
- prefix
- postfix

Example: EnforcedStyle: both (default)

# enforces `unless` for `prefix` and `postfix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefix

# enforces `unless` for just `prefix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# good

bar if !foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: postfix

# enforces `unless` for just `postfix` conditionals

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

# good

if !foo
  bar
end

Checks for uses of if with a negated condition. Only ifs without else are considered. There are three different styles:

- both
- prefix
- postfix

Example: EnforcedStyle: both (default)

# enforces `unless` for `prefix` and `postfix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefix

# enforces `unless` for just `prefix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# good

bar if !foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: postfix

# enforces `unless` for just `postfix` conditionals

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

# good

if !foo
  bar
end