Sign upLogin

europeana/europeana-blacklight

View on GitHub
Star
lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
2 hrs
Test Coverage

Method facet_field_aggregations has a Cognitive Complexity of 10 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

        def facet_field_aggregations
          facet_fields.each_with_object({}) do |facet, hash|
            facet_field_name = facet['name']

            items = facet['fields'].map do |value|
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb - About 1 hr 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 facet_query_aggregations has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

        def facet_query_aggregations
          return {} unless blacklight_config

          query_facet_fields = blacklight_config.facet_fields.select { |_k, v| v.query }
          query_facet_fields.each_with_object({}) do |(field_name, facet_field), hash|
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb - About 25 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

Use each_key instead of each.
Open

            blacklight_config.facet_fields.select { |_k, v| v.field == facet_field_name }.each do |key, _|
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for uses of each_key and each_value Hash methods.

Note: If you have an array of two-element arrays, you can put parentheses around the block arguments to indicate that you're not working with a hash, and suppress RuboCop offenses.

Example:

# bad
hash.keys.each { |k| p k }
hash.values.each { |v| p v }
hash.each { |k, _v| p k }
hash.each { |_k, v| p v }

# good
hash.each_key { |k| p k }
hash.each_value { |v| p v }

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

          if params[:"f.#{name}.facet.offset"]
            options[:offset] = params[:"f.#{name}.facet.offset"].to_i
          elsif params[:'facet.offset']
            options[:offset] = params[:'facet.offset'].to_i
          end
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb and 1 other location - About 20 mins to fix
lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb on lines 135..139

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 28.

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

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

          if params[:"f.#{name}.facet.limit"]
            options[:limit] = params[:"f.#{name}.facet.limit"].to_i
          elsif params[:'facet.limit']
            options[:limit] = params[:'facet.limit'].to_i
          end
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb and 1 other location - About 20 mins to fix
lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb on lines 141..145

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 28.

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

Use hits.zero? instead of hits == 0.
Open

            response_facet_queries.reject! { |_k, hits| hits == 0 }
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb by rubocop

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

Use safe navigation (&.) instead of checking if an object exists before calling the method.
Open

            if blacklight_config && blacklight_config.facet_fields[facet_field_name]
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/europeana/blacklight/response/facets.rb by rubocop

This cop transforms usages of a method call safeguarded by a non nil check for the variable whose method is being called to safe navigation (&.).

Configuration option: ConvertCodeThatCanStartToReturnNil The default for this is false. When configured to true, this will check for code in the format !foo.nil? && foo.bar. As it is written, the return of this code is limited to false and whatever the return of the method is. If this is converted to safe navigation, foo&.bar can start returning nil as well as what the method returns.

Example:

# bad
foo.bar if foo
foo.bar(param1, param2) if foo
foo.bar { |e| e.something } if foo
foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something } if foo

foo.bar if !foo.nil?
foo.bar unless !foo
foo.bar unless foo.nil?

foo && foo.bar
foo && foo.bar(param1, param2)
foo && foo.bar { |e| e.something }
foo && foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

# good
foo&.bar
foo&.bar(param1, param2)
foo&.bar { |e| e.something }
foo&.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

foo.nil? || foo.bar
!foo || foo.bar

# Methods that `nil` will `respond_to?` should not be converted to
# use safe navigation
foo.to_i if foo

There are no issues that match your filters.

Category
Status