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

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 75.

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 75.

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 47.

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

Rule: no-object-literal-type-assertion

Forbids an object literal to appear in a type assertion expression. Casting to any or to unknown is still allowed.

Rationale

Always prefer const x: T = { ... }; to const x = { ... } as T;. The type assertion in the latter case is either unnecessary or hides an error. The compiler will warn for excess properties with this syntax, but not missing required fields. For example: const x: { foo: number } = {} will fail to compile, but const x = {} as { foo: number } will succeed. Additionally, the const assertion const x = { foo: 1 } as const, introduced in TypeScript 3.4, is considered beneficial and is ignored by this rule.

Notes

• TypeScript Only

Config

One option may be configured:

• allow-arguments allows type assertions to be used on object literals inside call expressions.

Examples

"no-object-literal-type-assertion": true

"no-object-literal-type-assertion": true,[object Object]

Schema

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "allow-arguments": {
      "type": "boolean"
    }
  },
  "additionalProperties": false
}

For more information see this page.

Rule: ban-types

Bans specific types from being used. Does not ban the corresponding runtime objects from being used.

Notes

• TypeScript Only

Config

A list of ["regex", "optional explanation here"], which bans types that match regex

Examples

"ban-types": true,Object,Use {} instead.,String

Schema

{
  "type": "list",
  "listType": {
    "type": "array",
    "items": {
      "type": "string"
    },
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 2
  }
}

For more information see this page.

Rule: prefer-object-spread

Enforces the use of the ES2018 object spread operator over Object.assign() where appropriate.

Rationale

Object spread allows for better type checking and inference.

Notes

• Has Fix

Config

Not configurable.

Examples

"prefer-object-spread": true

For more information see this page.

Rule: ban-types

Bans specific types from being used. Does not ban the corresponding runtime objects from being used.

Notes

• TypeScript Only

Config

A list of ["regex", "optional explanation here"], which bans types that match regex

Examples

"ban-types": true,Object,Use {} instead.,String

Schema

{
  "type": "list",
  "listType": {
    "type": "array",
    "items": {
      "type": "string"
    },
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 2
  }
}

For more information see this page.

Rule: ban-types

Bans specific types from being used. Does not ban the corresponding runtime objects from being used.

Notes

• TypeScript Only

Config

A list of ["regex", "optional explanation here"], which bans types that match regex

Examples

"ban-types": true,Object,Use {} instead.,String

Schema

{
  "type": "list",
  "listType": {
    "type": "array",
    "items": {
      "type": "string"
    },
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 2
  }
}

For more information see this page.

Rule: no-shadowed-variable

Disallows shadowing variable declarations.

Rationale

When a variable in a local scope and a variable in the containing scope have the same name, shadowing occurs. Shadowing makes it impossible to access the variable in the containing scope and obscures to what value an identifier actually refers. Compare the following snippets:

const a = 'no shadow';
function print() {
    console.log(a);
}
print(); // logs 'no shadow'.

const a = 'no shadow';
function print() {
    const a = 'shadow'; // TSLint will complain here.
    console.log(a);
}
print(); // logs 'shadow'.

ESLint has an equivalent rule. For more background information, refer to this MDN closure doc.

Config

You can optionally pass an object to disable checking for certain kinds of declarations. Possible keys are "class", "enum", "function", "import", "interface", "namespace", "typeAlias" and "typeParameter". You can also pass "underscore" to ignore variable names that begin with _. Just set the value to false for the check you want to disable. All checks default to true, i.e. are enabled by default. Note that you cannot disable variables and parameters.

The option "temporalDeadZone" defaults to true which shows errors when shadowing block scoped declarations in their temporal dead zone. When set to false parameters, classes, enums and variables declared with let or const are not considered shadowed if the shadowing occurs within their temporal dead zone.

The following example shows how the "temporalDeadZone" option changes the linting result:

function fn(value) {
    if (value) {
        const tmp = value; // no error on this line if "temporalDeadZone" is false
        return tmp;
    }
    let tmp = undefined;
    if (!value) {
        const tmp = value; // this line always contains an error
        return tmp;
    }
}

Examples

"no-shadowed-variable": true

"no-shadowed-variable": true,[object Object]

Schema

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "class": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "enum": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "function": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "import": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "interface": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "namespace": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "typeAlias": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "typeParameter": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "temporalDeadZone": {
      "type": "boolean"
    },
    "underscore": {
      "type": "boolean"
    }
  }
}

For more information see this page.