This cop checks if the length a class exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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

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

Use a consistent style for named format string tokens.

Note: unannotated style cop only works for strings which are passed as arguments to those methods: sprintf, format, %. The reason is that unannotated format is very similar to encoded URLs or Date/Time formatting strings.

Example: EnforcedStyle: annotated (default)

# bad
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: template

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: unannotated

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%{greeting}', 'Hello')

# good
format('%s', 'Hello')</greeting>

This cop enforces the use of either #alias or #alias_method depending on configuration. It also flags uses of alias :symbol rather than alias bareword.

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefer_alias (default)

# bad
alias_method :bar, :foo
alias :bar :foo

# good
alias bar foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: preferaliasmethod

# bad
alias :bar :foo
alias bar foo

# good
alias_method :bar, :foo

This cops checks the indentation of hanging closing parentheses in method calls, method definitions, and grouped expressions. A hanging closing parenthesis means ) preceded by a line break.

Example:

# good: when x is on its own line, indent this way
func(
  x,
  y
)

# good: when x follows opening parenthesis, align parentheses
a = b * (x +
         y
        )

# bad
def func(
  x,
  y
  )
end

This cop checks the indentation of the first parameter in a method call. Parameters after the first one are checked by Style/AlignParameters, not by this cop.

Example:

# bad
some_method(
first_param,
second_param)

# good
some_method(
  first_param,
second_param)

This cop is designed to help upgrade to Ruby 3.0. It will add the comment # frozen_string_literal: true to the top of files to enable frozen string literals. Frozen string literals may be default in Ruby 3.0. The comment will be added below a shebang and encoding comment. The frozen string literal comment is only valid in Ruby 2.3+.

Example: EnforcedStyle: when_needed (default)

# The `when_needed` style will add the frozen string literal comment
# to files only when the `TargetRubyVersion` is set to 2.3+.
# bad
module Foo
  # ...
end

# good
# frozen_string_literal: true

module Foo
  # ...
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: always

# The `always` style will always add the frozen string literal comment
# to a file, regardless of the Ruby version or if `freeze` or `<<` are
# called on a string literal.
# bad
module Bar
  # ...
end

# good
# frozen_string_literal: true

module Bar
  # ...
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: never

# The `never` will enforce that the frozen string literal comment does
# not exist in a file.
# bad
# frozen_string_literal: true

module Baz
  # ...
end

# good
module Baz
  # ...
end

Use next to skip iteration instead of a condition at the end.

Example: EnforcedStyle: skipmodifierifs (default)

# bad
[1, 2].each do |a|
  if a == 1
    puts a
  end
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |a|
  next unless a == 1
  puts a
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |o|
  puts o unless o == 1
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: always

# With `always` all conditions at the end of an iteration needs to be
# replaced by next - with `skip_modifier_ifs` the modifier if like
# this one are ignored: `[1, 2].each { |a| return 'yes' if a == 1 }`

# bad
[1, 2].each do |o|
  puts o unless o == 1
end

# bad
[1, 2].each do |a|
  if a == 1
    puts a
  end
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |a|
  next unless a == 1
  puts a
end

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

Use a consistent style for named format string tokens.

Note: unannotated style cop only works for strings which are passed as arguments to those methods: sprintf, format, %. The reason is that unannotated format is very similar to encoded URLs or Date/Time formatting strings.

Example: EnforcedStyle: annotated (default)

# bad
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: template

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: unannotated

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%{greeting}', 'Hello')

# good
format('%s', 'Hello')</greeting>

Use a consistent style for named format string tokens.

Note: unannotated style cop only works for strings which are passed as arguments to those methods: sprintf, format, %. The reason is that unannotated format is very similar to encoded URLs or Date/Time formatting strings.

Example: EnforcedStyle: annotated (default)

# bad
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: template

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%s', 'Hello')

# good
format('%{greeting}', greeting: 'Hello')</greeting>

Example: EnforcedStyle: unannotated

# bad
format('%<greeting>s', greeting: 'Hello')
format('%{greeting}', 'Hello')

# good
format('%s', 'Hello')</greeting>