dvinciguerra/business-br

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.)

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.

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

A class that publishes a setter for an instance variable invites client classes to become too intimate with its inner workings, and in particular with its representation of state.

The same holds to a lesser extent for getters, but Reek doesn't flag those.

Example

Given:

class Klass
  attr_accessor :dummy
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

reek test.rb

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [2]:Klass declares the writable attribute dummy (Attribute)

A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.

This cop checks for comments put on the same line as some keywords. These keywords are: begin, class, def, end, module.

Note that some comments (such as :nodoc: and rubocop:disable) are allowed.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  statement
end # end if

# bad
class X # comment
  statement
end

# bad
def x; end # comment

# good
if condition
  statement
end

# good
class X # :nodoc:
  y
end

This cop checks for comments put on the same line as some keywords. These keywords are: begin, class, def, end, module.

Note that some comments (such as :nodoc: and rubocop:disable) are allowed.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  statement
end # end if

# bad
class X # comment
  statement
end

# bad
def x; end # comment

# good
if condition
  statement
end

# good
class X # :nodoc:
  y
end

This cop checks for comments put on the same line as some keywords. These keywords are: begin, class, def, end, module.

Note that some comments (such as :nodoc: and rubocop:disable) are allowed.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  statement
end # end if

# bad
class X # comment
  statement
end

# bad
def x; end # comment

# good
if condition
  statement
end

# good
class X # :nodoc:
  y
end

This cop checks for comments put on the same line as some keywords. These keywords are: begin, class, def, end, module.

Note that some comments (such as :nodoc: and rubocop:disable) are allowed.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  statement
end # end if

# bad
class X # comment
  statement
end

# bad
def x; end # comment

# good
if condition
  statement
end

# good
class X # :nodoc:
  y
end

This cop checks for missing top-level documentation of classes and modules. Classes with no body are exempt from the check and so are namespace modules - modules that have nothing in their bodies except classes, other modules, or constant definitions.

The documentation requirement is annulled if the class or module has a "#:nodoc:" comment next to it. Likewise, "#:nodoc: all" does the same for all its children.

Example:

# bad
class Person
  # ...
end

# good
# Description/Explanation of Person class
class Person
  # ...
end