This cop checks if the length a class exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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 if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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 if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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 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 if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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 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 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 if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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.

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

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 61.

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 61.

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 34.

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 34.

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

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

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

This cop checks for identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

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 identical lines at the beginning or end of each branch of a conditional statement.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_x
  do_z
else
  do_y
  do_z
end

# good
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end
do_z

# bad
if condition
  do_z
  do_x
else
  do_z
  do_y
end

# good
do_z
if condition
  do_x
else
  do_y
end

# bad
case foo
when 1
  do_x
when 2
  do_x
else
  do_x
end

# good
case foo
when 1
  do_x
  do_y
when 2
  # nothing
else
  do_x
  do_z
end

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"