Method add_option
has a Cognitive Complexity of 16 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def add_option name, options = {}, &def_proc
accepted_options << name
allow_env = options[:env].nil? || options[:env]
env_var = options[:env] || "CONJUR_#{name.to_s.upcase}"
def_val = options[:default]
- 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
Method add_option
has 34 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def add_option name, options = {}, &def_proc
accepted_options << name
allow_env = options[:env].nil? || options[:env]
env_var = options[:env] || "CONJUR_#{name.to_s.upcase}"
def_val = options[:default]
Conjur::Configuration#add_option has approx 26 statements Open
def add_option name, options = {}, &def_proc
- 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::Configuration#create_rest_client_options is controlled by argument 'options' Open
rest_client_options.merge(options || {})
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Control Parameter
is a special case of Control Couple
Example
A simple example would be the "quoted" parameter in the following method:
def write(quoted)
if quoted
write_quoted @value
else
write_unquoted @value
end
end
Fixing those problems is out of the scope of this document but an easy solution could be to remove the "write" method alltogether and to move the calls to "writequoted" / "writeunquoted" in the initial caller of "write".
Conjur::Configuration#initialize calls 'options.dup' 2 times Open
@explicit = options.dup
@supplied = options.dup
- 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::Configuration#add_option calls 'options[:env]' 3 times Open
allow_env = options[:env].nil? || options[:env]
env_var = options[:env] || "CONJUR_#{name.to_s.upcase}"
- 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::Configuration#add_option manually dispatches method call Open
def_proc ||= if def_val.respond_to?(:call)
def_val
elsif options[:required]
proc { raise "Missing required option #{opt_name}" }
else
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
Conjur#with_configuration calls 'Thread.current' 3 times Open
oldvalue = Thread.current[:conjur_configuration]
Thread.current[:conjur_configuration] = config
yield
ensure
Thread.current[:conjur_configuration] = oldvalue
- 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::Configuration#set calls 'key.to_sym' 3 times Open
if self.class.accepted_options.include?(key.to_sym)
explicit[key.to_sym] = value
supplied[key.to_sym] = value
- 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 has no descriptive comment Open
module Conjur
- 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
Conjur::Configuration has missing safe method 'apply_cert_config!' Open
def apply_cert_config! store=OpenSSL::SSL::SSLContext::DEFAULT_CERT_STORE
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Conjur::Configuration#add_option performs a nil-check Open
allow_env = options[:env].nil? || options[:env]
env_var = options[:env] || "CONJUR_#{name.to_s.upcase}"
def_val = options[:default]
opt_name = name
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
Conjur::Configuration has missing safe method 'ensure_cert_readable!' Open
def ensure_cert_readable!(path)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method
smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.
An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):
The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.
Such a method is called Missing Safe Method
if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.
Example
Given
class C
def foo; end
def foo!; end
def bar!; end
end
Reek would report bar!
as Missing Safe Method
smell but not foo!
.
Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:
class Parent
def foo; end
end
module Dangerous
def foo!; end
end
class Son < Parent
include Dangerous
end
class Daughter < Parent
end
In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method
smell for the method foo
of the Dangerous
module.
Conjur::Configuration#ensure_cert_readable! doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def ensure_cert_readable!(path)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Conjur::Configuration#add_option has the variable name 'x' Open
convert = options[:convert] || ->(x){ x }
- 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.