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

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 that methods specified in the filter's only or except options are defined within the same class or module.

You can technically specify methods of superclass or methods added by mixins on the filter, but these can confuse developers. If you specify methods that are defined in other classes or modules, you should define the filter in that class or module.

If you rely on behaviour defined in the superclass actions, you must remember to invoke super in the subclass actions.

Example:

# bad
class LoginController < ApplicationController
  before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]

  def index
  end
end

# good
class LoginController < ApplicationController
  before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]

  def index
  end

  def settings
  end

  def logout
  end
end

Example:

# bad
module FooMixin
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

  included do
    before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
  end
end

# good
module FooMixin
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

  included do
    before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
  end

  def foo
    # something
  end
end

Example:

class ContentController < ApplicationController
  def update
    @content.update(content_attributes)
  end
end

class ArticlesController < ContentController
  before_action :load_article, only: [:update]

  # the cop requires this method, but it relies on behaviour defined
  # in the superclass, so needs to invoke `super`
  def update
    super
  end

  private

  def load_article
    @content = Article.find(params[:article_id])
  end
end

This cop checks that methods specified in the filter's only or except options are defined within the same class or module.

You can technically specify methods of superclass or methods added by mixins on the filter, but these can confuse developers. If you specify methods that are defined in other classes or modules, you should define the filter in that class or module.

If you rely on behaviour defined in the superclass actions, you must remember to invoke super in the subclass actions.

Example:

# bad
class LoginController < ApplicationController
  before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]

  def index
  end
end

# good
class LoginController < ApplicationController
  before_action :require_login, only: %i[index settings logout]

  def index
  end

  def settings
  end

  def logout
  end
end

Example:

# bad
module FooMixin
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

  included do
    before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
  end
end

# good
module FooMixin
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

  included do
    before_action proc { authenticate }, only: :foo
  end

  def foo
    # something
  end
end

Example:

class ContentController < ApplicationController
  def update
    @content.update(content_attributes)
  end
end

class ArticlesController < ContentController
  before_action :load_article, only: [:update]

  # the cop requires this method, but it relies on behaviour defined
  # in the superclass, so needs to invoke `super`
  def update
    super
  end

  private

  def load_article
    @content = Article.find(params[:article_id])
  end
end

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 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Software_Metric.

Interpreting ABC size:

• <= 17 satisfactory
• 18..30 unsatisfactory
• > 30 dangerous

You can have repeated "attributes" calls count as a single "branch". For this purpose, attributes are any method with no argument; no attempt is meant to distinguish actual attr_reader from other methods.

Example: CountRepeatedAttributes: false (default is true)

# `model` and `current_user`, referenced 3 times each,
 # are each counted as only 1 branch each if
 # `CountRepeatedAttributes` is set to 'false'

 def search
   @posts = model.active.visible_by(current_user)
             .search(params[:q])
   @posts = model.some_process(@posts, current_user)
   @posts = model.another_process(@posts, current_user)

   render 'pages/search/page'
 end

This cop also takes into account AllowedMethods (defaults to []) And AllowedPatterns (defaults to [])

Checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

This cop has EnforcedShorthandSyntax option. It can enforce either the use of the explicit hash value syntax or the use of Ruby 3.1's hash value shorthand syntax.

The supported styles are:

• always - forces use of the 3.1 syntax (e.g. {foo:})
• never - forces use of explicit hash literal value
• either - accepts both shorthand and explicit use of hash literal value
• consistent - forces use of the 3.1 syntax only if all values can be omitted in the hash

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: always (default)

# bad
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: never

# bad
{foo:, bar:}

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: either

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo: foo, bar:}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: consistent

# bad - `foo` and `bar` values can be omitted
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# bad - `bar` value can be omitted
{foo:, bar: bar}

# bad - mixed syntaxes
{foo:, bar: baz}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

# good - can't omit `baz`
{foo: foo, bar: baz}

Checks for rescuing StandardError. There are two supported styles implicit and explicit. This cop will not register an offense if any error other than StandardError is specified.

Example: EnforcedStyle: explicit (default)

# `explicit` will enforce using `rescue StandardError`
# instead of `rescue`.

# bad
begin
  foo
rescue
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue OtherError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError, SecurityError
  bar
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: implicit

# `implicit` will enforce using `rescue` instead of
# `rescue StandardError`.

# bad
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue OtherError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError, SecurityError
  bar
end

Checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

This cop has EnforcedShorthandSyntax option. It can enforce either the use of the explicit hash value syntax or the use of Ruby 3.1's hash value shorthand syntax.

The supported styles are:

• always - forces use of the 3.1 syntax (e.g. {foo:})
• never - forces use of explicit hash literal value
• either - accepts both shorthand and explicit use of hash literal value
• consistent - forces use of the 3.1 syntax only if all values can be omitted in the hash

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: always (default)

# bad
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: never

# bad
{foo:, bar:}

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: either

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo: foo, bar:}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: consistent

# bad - `foo` and `bar` values can be omitted
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# bad - `bar` value can be omitted
{foo:, bar: bar}

# bad - mixed syntaxes
{foo:, bar: baz}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

# good - can't omit `baz`
{foo: foo, bar: baz}

Checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

This cop has EnforcedShorthandSyntax option. It can enforce either the use of the explicit hash value syntax or the use of Ruby 3.1's hash value shorthand syntax.

The supported styles are:

• always - forces use of the 3.1 syntax (e.g. {foo:})
• never - forces use of explicit hash literal value
• either - accepts both shorthand and explicit use of hash literal value
• consistent - forces use of the 3.1 syntax only if all values can be omitted in the hash

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: always (default)

# bad
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: never

# bad
{foo:, bar:}

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: either

# good
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# good
{foo: foo, bar:}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

Example: EnforcedShorthandSyntax: consistent

# bad - `foo` and `bar` values can be omitted
{foo: foo, bar: bar}

# bad - `bar` value can be omitted
{foo:, bar: bar}

# bad - mixed syntaxes
{foo:, bar: baz}

# good
{foo:, bar:}

# good - can't omit `baz`
{foo: foo, bar: baz}

This cop checks for consistent uses of request.referer or request.referrer, depending on the cop's configuration.

Example: EnforcedStyle: referer (default)

# bad
request.referrer

# good
request.referer

Example: EnforcedStyle: referrer

# bad
request.referer

# good
request.referrer

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 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Software_Metric.

Interpreting ABC size:

• <= 17 satisfactory
• 18..30 unsatisfactory
• > 30 dangerous

You can have repeated "attributes" calls count as a single "branch". For this purpose, attributes are any method with no argument; no attempt is meant to distinguish actual attr_reader from other methods.

Example: CountRepeatedAttributes: false (default is true)

# `model` and `current_user`, referenced 3 times each,
 # are each counted as only 1 branch each if
 # `CountRepeatedAttributes` is set to 'false'

 def search
   @posts = model.active.visible_by(current_user)
             .search(params[:q])
   @posts = model.some_process(@posts, current_user)
   @posts = model.another_process(@posts, current_user)

   render 'pages/search/page'
 end

This cop also takes into account AllowedMethods (defaults to []) And AllowedPatterns (defaults to [])

This cop checks for the use of methods which skip validations which are listed in https://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_validations.html#skipping-validations

Methods may be ignored from this rule by configuring a Whitelist.

Example:

# bad
Article.first.decrement!(:view_count)
DiscussionBoard.decrement_counter(:post_count, 5)
Article.first.increment!(:view_count)
DiscussionBoard.increment_counter(:post_count, 5)
person.toggle :active
product.touch
Billing.update_all("category = 'authorized', author = 'David'")
user.update_attribute(:website, 'example.com')
user.update_columns(last_request_at: Time.current)
Post.update_counters 5, comment_count: -1, action_count: 1

# good
user.update(website: 'example.com')
FileUtils.touch('file')

Example: Whitelist: ["touch"]

# bad
DiscussionBoard.decrement_counter(:post_count, 5)
DiscussionBoard.increment_counter(:post_count, 5)
person.toggle :active

# good
user.touch

This cop checks for the use of methods which skip validations which are listed in https://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_validations.html#skipping-validations

Methods may be ignored from this rule by configuring a Whitelist.

Example:

# bad
Article.first.decrement!(:view_count)
DiscussionBoard.decrement_counter(:post_count, 5)
Article.first.increment!(:view_count)
DiscussionBoard.increment_counter(:post_count, 5)
person.toggle :active
product.touch
Billing.update_all("category = 'authorized', author = 'David'")
user.update_attribute(:website, 'example.com')
user.update_columns(last_request_at: Time.current)
Post.update_counters 5, comment_count: -1, action_count: 1

# good
user.update(website: 'example.com')
FileUtils.touch('file')

Example: Whitelist: ["touch"]

# bad
DiscussionBoard.decrement_counter(:post_count, 5)
DiscussionBoard.increment_counter(:post_count, 5)
person.toggle :active

# good
user.touch