Assignment Branch Condition size for printSchema is too high. [218/75] Open
def self.printSchema(kitten_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false, prefix: nil)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["type"] == "object"
printme = []
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Assignment Branch Condition size for docSchema is too high. [154.9/75] Open
def self.docSchema
docschema = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(@@schema))
only_children = {}
MU::Cloud.resource_types.each_pair { |classname, attrs|
MU::Cloud.supportedClouds.each { |cloud|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Method printSchema
has a Cognitive Complexity of 135 (exceeds 75 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.printSchema(kitten_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false, prefix: nil)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["type"] == "object"
printme = []
- Read upRead up
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
Assignment Branch Condition size for printMuYamlSchema is too high. [130.3/75] Open
def self.printMuYamlSchema(muyaml_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["subtree"]
printme = Array.new
# order sub-elements by whether they're required, so we can use YARD's
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Perceived complexity for printSchema is too high. [52/35] Open
def self.printSchema(kitten_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false, prefix: nil)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["type"] == "object"
printme = []
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Cyclomatic complexity for printSchema is too high. [45/30] Open
def self.printSchema(kitten_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false, prefix: nil)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["type"] == "object"
printme = []
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cyclomatic complexity for printMuYamlSchema is too high. [31/30] Open
def self.printMuYamlSchema(muyaml_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["subtree"]
printme = Array.new
# order sub-elements by whether they're required, so we can use YARD's
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Perceived complexity for printMuYamlSchema is too high. [36/35] Open
def self.printMuYamlSchema(muyaml_rb, class_hierarchy, schema, in_array = false, required = false)
return if schema.nil?
if schema["subtree"]
printme = Array.new
# order sub-elements by whether they're required, so we can use YARD's
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Avoid deeply nested control flow statements. Open
if File.exist?(example_path)
example = "#\n# Examples:\n#\n"
# XXX these variables are all parameters from the BoKs in
# modules/tests. A really clever implementation would read
# and parse them to get default values, perhaps, instead of
Avoid too many return
statements within this method. Open
return docstring
Avoid more than 4 levels of block nesting. Open
if File.exist?(example_path)
example = "#\n# Examples:\n#\n"
# XXX these variables are all parameters from the BoKs in
# modules/tests. A really clever implementation would read
# and parse them to get default values, perhaps, instead of
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.
You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks
option. When set to false
(the default) blocks are not counted
towards the nesting level. Set to true
to count blocks as well.
The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.
Use each_value
instead of values.each
. Open
MU::Cloud.resource_types.values.each { |attrs|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for uses of each_key
and each_value
Hash methods.
Note: If you have an array of two-element arrays, you can put parentheses around the block arguments to indicate that you're not working with a hash, and suppress RuboCop offenses.
Example:
# bad
hash.keys.each { |k| p k }
hash.values.each { |v| p v }
hash.each { |k, _v| p k }
hash.each { |_k, v| p v }
# good
hash.each_key { |k| p k }
hash.each_value { |v| p v }
Use =~
in places where the MatchData
returned by #match
will not be used. Open
docschema["properties"][attrs[:cfg_plural]]["items"]["properties"][key]["description"] += "\n"+(cfg["description"].match(/^#/) ? "" : "# ")+cfg["description"]
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop identifies the use of Regexp#match
or String#match
, which
returns #<MatchData>
/nil
. The return value of =~
is an integral
index/nil
and is more performant.
Example:
# bad
do_something if str.match(/regex/)
while regex.match('str')
do_something
end
# good
method(str =~ /regex/)
return value unless regex =~ 'str'
Use each_key
instead of keys.each
. Open
cfg["properties"].keys.each { |key|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for uses of each_key
and each_value
Hash methods.
Note: If you have an array of two-element arrays, you can put parentheses around the block arguments to indicate that you're not working with a hash, and suppress RuboCop offenses.
Example:
# bad
hash.keys.each { |k| p k }
hash.values.each { |v| p v }
hash.each { |k, _v| p k }
hash.each { |_k, v| p v }
# good
hash.each_key { |k| p k }
hash.each_value { |v| p v }
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
printme.each { |lines|
if !lines.nil? and lines.is_a?(String)
lines.lines.each { |line|
muyaml_rb.puts ["\t"].cycle(tabs).to_a.join('') + line
}
- Read upRead up
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 28.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
printme.each { |lines|
if !lines.nil? and lines.is_a?(String)
lines.lines.each { |line|
kitten_rb.puts ["\t"].cycle(tabs).to_a.join('') + line
}
- Read upRead up
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 28.
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
end
at 481, 8 is not aligned with if
at 477, 15. Open
end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks whether the end keywords are aligned properly.
Three modes are supported through the EnforcedStyleAlignWith
configuration parameter:
If it's set to keyword
(which is the default), the end
shall be aligned with the start of the keyword (if, class, etc.).
If it's set to variable
the end
shall be aligned with the
left-hand-side of the variable assignment, if there is one.
If it's set to start_of_line
, the end
shall be aligned with the
start of the line where the matching keyword appears.
Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: keyword (default)
# bad
variable = if true
end
# good
variable = if true
end
Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: variable
# bad
variable = if true
end
# good
variable = if true
end
Example: EnforcedStyleAlignWith: startofline
# bad
variable = if true
end
# good
puts(if true
end)
The use of eval
is a serious security risk. Open
mu_yaml_schema = eval(%Q{
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval
and Binding#eval
.
Example:
# bad
eval(something)
binding.eval(something)
Redundant use of Object#to_s
in interpolation. Open
MU.log "Munging #{cloud}-specific #{classname.to_s} schema into BasketofKittens => #{attrs[:cfg_plural]} => #{key}", MU::DEBUG, details: docschema["properties"][attrs[:cfg_plural]]["items"]["properties"][key]
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for string conversion in string interpolation, which is redundant.
Example:
# bad
"result is #{something.to_s}"
Example:
# good
"result is #{something}"