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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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

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 checks for extra/unnecessary whitespace.

Example:

# good if AllowForAlignment is true
name      = "RuboCop"
# Some comment and an empty line

website  += "/bbatsov/rubocop" unless cond
puts        "rubocop"          if     debug

# bad for any configuration
set_app("RuboCop")
website  = "https://github.com/bbatsov/rubocop"

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

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

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 checks the indentation of the right hand side operand in binary operations that span more than one line.

Example:

# bad
if a +
b
  something
end

# good
if a +
   b
  something
end

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

This cop checks the args passed to fail and raise. For exploded style (default), it recommends passing the exception class and message to raise, rather than construct an instance of the error. It will still allow passing just a message, or the construction of an error with more than one argument.

The exploded style works identically, but with the addition that it will also suggest constructing error objects when the exception is passed multiple arguments.

Example: EnforcedStyle: exploded (default)

# bad
raise StandardError.new("message")

# good
raise StandardError, "message"
fail "message"
raise MyCustomError.new(arg1, arg2, arg3)
raise MyKwArgError.new(key1: val1, key2: val2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: compact

# bad
raise StandardError, "message"
raise RuntimeError, arg1, arg2, arg3

# good
raise StandardError.new("message")
raise MyCustomError.new(arg1, arg2, arg3)
fail "message"

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

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

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 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

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

Checks that operators have space around them, except for ** which should not have surrounding space.

Example:

# bad
total = 3*4
"apple"+"juice"
my_number = 38/4
a ** b

# good
total = 3 * 4
"apple" + "juice"
my_number = 38 / 4
a**b

This cop checks for the presence of when branches without a body.

Example:

# bad

case foo
when bar then 1
when baz then # nothing
end

Example:

# good

case foo
when bar then 1
when baz then 2
end

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

This cop checks for the presence of parentheses around ternary conditions. It is configurable to enforce inclusion or omission of parentheses using EnforcedStyle. Omission is only enforced when removing the parentheses won't cause a different behavior.

Example: EnforcedStyle: requirenoparentheses (default)

# bad
foo = (bar?) ? a : b
foo = (bar.baz?) ? a : b
foo = (bar && baz) ? a : b

# good
foo = bar? ? a : b
foo = bar.baz? ? a : b
foo = bar && baz ? a : b

Example: EnforcedStyle: require_parentheses

# bad
foo = bar? ? a : b
foo = bar.baz? ? a : b
foo = bar && baz ? a : b

# good
foo = (bar?) ? a : b
foo = (bar.baz?) ? a : b
foo = (bar && baz) ? a : b

Example: EnforcedStyle: requireparentheseswhen_complex

# bad
foo = (bar?) ? a : b
foo = (bar.baz?) ? a : b
foo = bar && baz ? a : b

# good
foo = bar? ? a : b
foo = bar.baz? ? a : b
foo = (bar && baz) ? a : b