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 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 a class 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 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.

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

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 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 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.

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'

This cop identifies places where a case-insensitive string comparison can better be implemented using casecmp.

Example:

# bad
str.downcase == 'abc'
str.upcase.eql? 'ABC'
'abc' == str.downcase
'ABC'.eql? str.upcase
str.downcase == str.downcase

# good
str.casecmp('ABC').zero?
'abc'.casecmp(str).zero?

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'

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'

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'

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'

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'

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'

This cop identifies places where gsub can be replaced by tr or delete.

Example:

# bad
'abc'.gsub('b', 'd')
'abc'.gsub('a', '')
'abc'.gsub(/a/, 'd')
'abc'.gsub!('a', 'd')

# good
'abc'.gsub(/.*/, 'a')
'abc'.gsub(/a+/, 'd')
'abc'.tr('b', 'd')
'a b c'.delete(' ')

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 131.

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 131.

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 116.

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 67.

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 67.

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 31.

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 31.

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 27.

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 27.

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 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)

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)

This cop checks that your heredocs are using meaningful delimiters. By default it disallows END and EO*, and can be configured through blacklisting additional delimiters.

Example:

# good
<<-SQL
  SELECT * FROM foo
SQL

# bad
<<-END
  SELECT * FROM foo
END

# bad
<<-EOS
  SELECT * FROM foo
EOS

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)

This cop checks for unused method arguments.

Example:

# bad

def some_method(used, unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

Example:

# good

def some_method(used, _unused, _unused_but_allowed)
  puts used
end

This cop checks for rescue blocks with no body.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  do_something
rescue
  # do nothing
end

Example:

# bad

begin
  do_something
rescue
  # do nothing
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  do_something
rescue
  handle_exception
end

Example:

# good

begin
  do_something
rescue
  handle_exception
end

This cop checks for string conversion in string interpolation, which is redundant.

Example:

# bad

"result is #{something.to_s}"

Example:

# good

"result is #{something}"

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)

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)

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)