This warning comes up if a model does not limit what attributes can be set through mass assignment.

In particular, this check looks for attr_accessible inside model definitions. If it is not found, this warning will be issued.

Brakeman also warns on use of attr_protected - especially since it was found to be vulnerable to bypass. Warnings for mass assignment on models using attr_protected will be reported, but at a lower confidence level.

Note that disabling mass assignment globally will suppress these warnings.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

This cop looks for has(one|many) and belongsto associations where ActiveRecord can't automatically determine the inverse association because of a scope or the options used. This can result in unnecessary queries in some circumstances. :inverse_of must be manually specified for associations to work in both ways, or set to false to opt-out.

Example:

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  has_many(:posts,
    -> { order(published_at: :desc) },
    inverse_of: :blog
  )
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

# good
class Blog < ApplicationRecord
  with_options inverse_of: :blog do
    has_many :posts, -> { order(published_at: :desc) }
  end
end

class Post < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :blog
end

Example:

# bad
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable
end

# good
class Picture < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :imageable, polymorphic: true
end

class Employee < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

class Product < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :pictures, as: :imageable, inverse_of: :imageable
end

Example:

# bad
# However, RuboCop can not detect this pattern...
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician
  belongs_to :patient
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

# good
class Physician < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :patients, through: :appointments
end

class Appointment < ApplicationRecord
  belongs_to :physician, inverse_of: :appointments
  belongs_to :patient, inverse_of: :appointments
end

class Patient < ApplicationRecord
  has_many :appointments
  has_many :physicians, through: :appointments
end

@see http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#bi-directional-associations @see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#module-ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods-label-Setting+Inverses

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 42.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

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 42.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

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 25.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

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 25.

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

• Extract Method
• Extract Class
• Form Template Method
• Introduce Null Object
• Pull Up Method
• Pull Up Field
• Substitute Algorithm

Further Reading

• Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
• Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
• Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

If the else branch of a conditional consists solely of an if node, it can be combined with the else to become an elsif. This helps to keep the nesting level from getting too deep.

Example:

# bad
if condition_a
  action_a
else
  if condition_b
    action_b
  else
    action_c
  end
end

# good
if condition_a
  action_a
elsif condition_b
  action_b
else
  action_c
end

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

This cop makes sure that predicates are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def is_even?(value)
end

# good
def even?(value)
end

# bad
def has_value?
end

# good
def value?
end

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

This cop checks for multi-line ternary op expressions.

Example:

# bad
a = cond ?
  b : c
a = cond ? b :
    c
a = cond ?
    b :
    c

# good
a = cond ? b : c
a =
  if cond
    b
  else
    c
  end

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end