Conjur::API#resources has approx 12 statements Open
def resources options = {}
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
Conjur::API#resources refers to 'result' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
result = result['count'] if result.is_a?(Hash)
if result.is_a?(Numeric)
result
else
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.
Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.
Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.
Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.
Example
Running Reek on:
class Warehouse
def sale_price(item)
(item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
end
end
would report:
Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)
since this:
(item.price - item.rebate)
belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.
Conjur::API#resources calls 'Conjur.configuration' 2 times Open
options = { host: Conjur.configuration.core_url, credentials: credentials }.merge options
options[:account] ||= Conjur.configuration.account
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Conjur::API has no descriptive comment Open
class API
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Method resources
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def resources options = {}
options = { host: Conjur.configuration.core_url, credentials: credentials }.merge options
options[:account] ||= Conjur.configuration.account
host, credentials, account, kind = options.values_at(*[:host, :credentials, :account, :kind])
- 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
Conjur::API#resources has the variable name 'r' Open
resource(result['id']).tap do |r|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.
Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.
Add empty line after guard clause. Open
fail ArgumentError, "host and account are required" unless [host, account].all?
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop 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
Pass array contents as separate arguments. Open
host, credentials, account, kind = options.values_at(*[:host, :credentials, :account, :kind])
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for unneeded usages of splat expansion
Example:
# bad
a = *[1, 2, 3]
a = *'a'
a = *1
begin
foo
rescue *[StandardError, ApplicationError]
bar
end
case foo
when *[1, 2, 3]
bar
else
baz
end
Example:
# good
c = [1, 2, 3]
a = *c
a, b = *c
a, *b = *c
a = *1..10
a = ['a']
begin
foo
rescue StandardError, ApplicationError
bar
end
case foo
when 1, 2, 3
bar
else
baz
end