Sign upLogin

dotcloud/docker

View on GitHub
Star
volume/mounts/linux_parser.go

Summary

Maintainability
C
1 day
Test Coverage

Method linuxParser.validateMountConfigImpl has a Cognitive Complexity of 50 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (p *linuxParser) validateMountConfigImpl(mnt *mount.Mount, validateBindSourceExists bool) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
Severity: Minor
Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go - About 5 hrs to fix

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 linuxParser.validateMountConfigImpl has 67 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (p *linuxParser) validateMountConfigImpl(mnt *mount.Mount, validateBindSourceExists bool) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
Severity: Minor
Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go - About 1 hr to fix

    Method linuxParser.validateMountConfigImpl has 17 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
    Open

    func (p *linuxParser) validateMountConfigImpl(mnt *mount.Mount, validateBindSourceExists bool) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
    Severity: Major
    Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go - About 1 hr to fix

      Method linuxParser.ParseMountRaw has 55 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

      func (p *linuxParser) ParseMountRaw(raw, volumeDriver string) (*MountPoint, error) {
    arr := strings.SplitN(raw, ":", 4)
    if arr[0] == "" {
        return nil, errInvalidSpec(raw)
    }
      Severity: Minor
      Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go - About 1 hr to fix

        Method linuxParser.ParseVolumesFrom has 6 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
        Open

        func (p *linuxParser) ParseVolumesFrom(spec string) (string, string, error) {
    if len(spec) == 0 {
        return "", "", fmt.Errorf("volumes-from specification cannot be an empty string")
    }
        Severity: Major
        Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go - About 40 mins to fix

          Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
          Open

              case mount.TypeVolume:
        if cfg.Source == "" {
            mp.Name = stringid.GenerateRandomID()
        } else {
            mp.Name = cfg.Source
          Severity: Major
          Found in volume/mounts/linux_parser.go and 1 other location - About 1 hr to fix
          volume/mounts/windows_parser.go on lines 395..410

          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 144.

          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

          Further Reading

          There are no issues that match your filters.

          Category
          Status