Sign upLogin

dotcloud/docker

View on GitHub
Star
volume/mounts/windows_parser.go

Summary

Maintainability
C
1 day
Test Coverage

Method windowsParser.validateMountConfigReg has a Cognitive Complexity of 51 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (p *windowsParser) validateMountConfigReg(mnt *mount.Mount, additionalValidators ...mountValidator) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
    for _, v := range additionalValidators {
Severity: Minor
Found in volume/mounts/windows_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 windowsParser.validateMountConfigReg has 75 lines of code (exceeds 50 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

func (p *windowsParser) validateMountConfigReg(mnt *mount.Mount, additionalValidators ...mountValidator) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
    for _, v := range additionalValidators {
Severity: Minor
Found in volume/mounts/windows_parser.go - About 2 hrs to fix

    Method windowsParser.validateMountConfigReg has 20 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
    Open

    func (p *windowsParser) validateMountConfigReg(mnt *mount.Mount, additionalValidators ...mountValidator) error {
    if len(mnt.Target) == 0 {
        return &errMountConfig{mnt, errMissingField("Target")}
    }
    for _, v := range additionalValidators {
    Severity: Major
    Found in volume/mounts/windows_parser.go - About 1 hr to fix

      Method windowsParser.splitRawSpec has a Cognitive Complexity of 23 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

      func (p *windowsParser) splitRawSpec(raw string, splitRegexp *regexp.Regexp) ([]string, error) {
    match := splitRegexp.FindStringSubmatch(strings.ToLower(raw))
    if len(match) == 0 {
        return nil, errInvalidSpec(raw)
    }
      Severity: Minor
      Found in volume/mounts/windows_parser.go - About 45 mins 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 windowsParser.ParseVolumesFrom has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
      Open

      func (p *windowsParser) 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/windows_parser.go - About 35 mins to fix

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

            case mount.TypeVolume:
        if cfg.Source != "" {
            // non-anonymous volume
            mp.Name = cfg.Source
        }
        Severity: Minor
        Found in volume/mounts/windows_parser.go and 1 other location - About 55 mins to fix
        volume/mounts/linux_parser.go on lines 330..344

        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 126.

        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