Method questionnaire_unique? has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.questionnaire_unique?
find_each do |assignment|
assignment.questionnaire_types.each do |questionnaire_type|
questionnaire_list = []
assignment.questionnaires.each do |questionnaire|- Read upRead up
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
Missing top-level module documentation comment. Open
module AssignmentAnalytic- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
# ...
endRename has_review_questionnaire? to review_questionnaire?. Open
def has_review_questionnaire?- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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?
endUse num_teams.zero? instead of num_teams == 0. Open
if num_teams == 0- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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 > 0Use num_teams.zero? instead of num_teams == 0. Open
if num_teams == 0- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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