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

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

Checks for array literals made up of symbols that are not using the %i() syntax.

Alternatively, it checks for symbol arrays using the %i() syntax on projects which do not want to use that syntax, perhaps because they support a version of Ruby lower than 2.0.

Configuration option: MinSize If set, arrays with fewer elements than this value will not trigger the cop. For example, a MinSize of 3 will not enforce a style on an array of 2 or fewer elements.

Example: EnforcedStyle: percent (default)

# good
%i[foo bar baz]

# bad
[:foo, :bar, :baz]

Example: EnforcedStyle: brackets

# good
[:foo, :bar, :baz]

# bad
%i[foo bar baz]

Check for uses of braces or do/end around single line or multi-line blocks.

Methods that can be either procedural or functional and cannot be categorised from their usage alone is ignored. lambda, proc, and it are their defaults. Additional methods can be added to the IgnoredMethods.

Example: EnforcedStyle: linecountbased (default)

# bad - single line block
items.each do |item| item / 5 end

# good - single line block
items.each { |item| item / 5 }

# bad - multi-line block
things.map { |thing|
  something = thing.some_method
  process(something)
}

# good - multi-line block
things.map do |thing|
  something = thing.some_method
  process(something)
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: semantic

# Prefer `do...end` over `{...}` for procedural blocks.

# return value is used/assigned
# bad
foo = map do |x|
  x
end
puts (map do |x|
  x
end)

# return value is not used out of scope
# good
map do |x|
  x
end

# Prefer `{...}` over `do...end` for functional blocks.

# return value is not used out of scope
# bad
each { |x|
  x
}

# return value is used/assigned
# good
foo = map { |x|
  x
}
map { |x|
  x
}.inspect

# The AllowBracesOnProceduralOneLiners option is ignored unless the
# EnforcedStyle is set to `semantic`. If so:

# If the AllowBracesOnProceduralOneLiners option is unspecified, or
# set to `false` or any other falsey value, then semantic purity is
# maintained, so one-line procedural blocks must use do-end, not
# braces.

# bad
collection.each { |element| puts element }

# good
collection.each do |element| puts element end

# If the AllowBracesOnProceduralOneLiners option is set to `true`, or
# any other truthy value, then one-line procedural blocks may use
# either style. (There is no setting for requiring braces on them.)

# good
collection.each { |element| puts element }

# also good
collection.each do |element| puts element end

Example: EnforcedStyle: bracesforchaining

# bad
words.each do |word|
  word.flip.flop
end.join("-")

# good
words.each { |word|
  word.flip.flop
}.join("-")

Example: EnforcedStyle: always_braces

# bad
words.each do |word|
  word.flip.flop
end

# good
words.each { |word|
  word.flip.flop
}

Example: BracesRequiredMethods: ['sig']

# Methods listed in the BracesRequiredMethods list, such as 'sig'
# in this example, will require `{...}` braces. This option takes
# precedence over all other configurations except IgnoredMethods.

# bad
sig do
  params(
    foo: string,
  ).void
end
def bar(foo)
  puts foo
end

# good
sig {
  params(
    foo: string,
  ).void
}
def bar(foo)
  puts foo
end

Example: IgnoredMethods: ['lambda', 'proc', 'it' ] (default)

# good
foo = lambda do |x|
  puts "Hello, #{x}"
end

foo = lambda do |x|
  x * 100
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

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:, bar:}

Checks for operators, variables, literals, and nonmutating methods used in void context.

Example: CheckForMethodsWithNoSideEffects: false (default)

# bad
def some_method
  some_num * 10
  do_something
end

def some_method(some_var)
  some_var
  do_something
end

Example: CheckForMethodsWithNoSideEffects: true

# bad
def some_method(some_array)
  some_array.sort
  do_something(some_array)
end

# good
def some_method
  do_something
  some_num * 10
end

def some_method(some_var)
  do_something
  some_var
end

def some_method(some_array)
  some_array.sort!
  do_something(some_array)
end

Enforces empty line after guard clause

Example:

# bad
def foo
  return if need_return?
  bar
end

# good
def foo
  return if need_return?

  bar
end

# good
def foo
  return if something?
  return if something_different?

  bar
end

# also good
def foo
  if something?
    do_something
    return if need_return?
  end
end

Expressions don't expand in single quotes, use double quotes for that.

Problematic code:

name=World
echo 'Hello $name'

Correct code:

name=World
echo "Hello $name"

Rationale:

Single quotes prevent expansion of everything, including variables and command substitution.

If you want to use the values of variables and such, use double quotes instead.

Note that if you have other items that needs single quoting, you can use both in a single word:

echo '$1 USD is '"$rate GBP"

Exceptions

If you want $stuff to be a literal dollar sign followed by the characters "stuff", you can [[ignore]] this message.

ShellCheck tries to be smart about it, and won't warn when this is used with awk, perl and similar, but there are some inherent ambiguities like 'I have $1 in my wallet', which could be "one dollar" or "whatever's in the first parameter".

In the particular case of sed, ShellCheck uses additional heuristics to try to separate cases like 's/$foo/bar/' (failing to replace the variable $foo) with from the false positives like '$d' (delete last line). If you're still triggering these, consider being more generous with your spaces: use $ { s/foo/bar; } instead of ${s/foo/bar/;}

Notice

Original content from the ShellCheck https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/wiki.