Sign upLogin

berkes/postgres_key_value

View on GitHub
Star
benchmark/index_benchmark.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
0 mins
Test Coverage

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_without_index has approx 8 statements
Open

  def bench_read_without_index
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

A method with Too Many Statements is any method that has a large number of lines.

Too Many Statements warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if, else, case, when, for, while, until, begin, rescue) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.

So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:

def parse(arg, argv, &error)
  if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
    return nil, block, nil                                         # +1
  end
  opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1]                          # +2
  val = conv_arg(*val)                                             # +3
  if opt and !arg
    argv.shift                                                     # +4
  else
    val[0] = nil                                                   # +5
  end
  val                                                              # +6
end

(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_without_index calls 'read_n(n)' 2 times
Open

    time_with_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
    remove_pkey_constraint
    time_without_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_without_index calls 'Benchmark.measure' 2 times
Open

    time_with_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
    remove_pkey_constraint
    time_without_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_without_index calls 'Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }' 2 times
Open

    time_with_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
    remove_pkey_constraint
    time_without_index = Benchmark.measure { read_n(n) }
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_with_index has the variable name 'n'
Open

    assert_performance_linear(THRESHOLD) do |n|
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

An Uncommunicative Variable Name is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

IndexBenchmark#bench_read_without_index has the variable name 'n'
Open

    n = bench_range.max
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

An Uncommunicative Variable Name is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

IndexBenchmark#bench_insert_with_index has the variable name 'n'
Open

    assert_performance_linear(THRESHOLD) do |n|
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

An Uncommunicative Variable Name is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

IndexBenchmark#bench_upsert_with_index has the variable name 'n'
Open

    assert_performance_linear(THRESHOLD) do |n|
Severity: Minor
Found in benchmark/index_benchmark.rb by reek

An Uncommunicative Variable Name is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

There are no issues that match your filters.

Category
Status