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 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

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 91.

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

Checks that braces used for hash literals have or don't have surrounding space depending on configuration.

Example: EnforcedStyle: space

# The `space` style enforces that hash literals have
# surrounding space.

# bad
h = {a: 1, b: 2}

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

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_space

# The `no_space` style enforces that hash literals have
# no surrounding space.

# bad
h = { a: 1, b: 2 }

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

Example: EnforcedStyle: compact

# The `compact` style normally requires a space inside
# hash braces, with the exception that successive left
# braces or right braces are collapsed together in nested hashes.

# bad
h = { a: { b: 2 } }

# good
h = { a: { b: 2 }}

This cop checks for the use of a method, the result of which would be a literal, like an empty array, hash or string.

Example:

# bad
a = Array.new
h = Hash.new
s = String.new

# good
a = []
h = {}
s = ''

This cop checks for numeric comparisons that can be replaced by a predicate method, such as receiver.length == 0, receiver.length > 0, receiver.length != 0, receiver.length < 1 and receiver.size == 0 that can be replaced by receiver.empty? and !receiver.empty.

Example:

# bad
[1, 2, 3].length == 0
0 == "foobar".length
array.length < 1
{a: 1, b: 2}.length != 0
string.length > 0
hash.size > 0

# good
[1, 2, 3].empty?
"foobar".empty?
array.empty?
!{a: 1, b: 2}.empty?
!string.empty?
!hash.empty?

Use symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)

This cop checks for uses of and and or, and suggests using && and || instead. It can be configured to check only in conditions, or in all contexts.

Example: EnforcedStyle: always (default)

# bad
foo.save and return

# bad
if foo and bar
end

# good
foo.save && return

# good
if foo && bar
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: conditionals

# bad
if foo and bar
end

# good
foo.save && return

# good
foo.save and return

# good
if foo && bar
end

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

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

Example: EnforcedStyle: bracesforchaining

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

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