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 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 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

Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.

You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool

A method with Too Many Statements is any method that has a large number of lines.

Too Many Statements warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if, else, case, when, for, while, until, begin, rescue) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.

So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:

def parse(arg, argv, &error)
  if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
    return nil, block, nil                                         # +1
  end
  opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1]                          # +2
  val = conv_arg(*val)                                             # +3
  if opt and !arg
    argv.shift                                                     # +4
  else
    val[0] = nil                                                   # +5
  end
  val                                                              # +6
end

(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)

Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.

Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.

Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.

Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.

Example

Running Reek on:

class Warehouse
  def sale_price(item)
    (item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
  end
end

would report:

Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)

since this:

(item.price - item.rebate)

belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.

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

Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.

Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.

Example

Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:

def double_thing()
  @other.thing + @other.thing
end

One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:

def double_thing()
  thing = @other.thing
  thing + thing
end

A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing by calls to @other.double_thing:

class Other
  def double_thing()
    thing + thing
  end
end

The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.

Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.

Example

Given

class Dummy
  # Do things...
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)

Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:

# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
  # Do things...
end

A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

This cop checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

This cop enforces consistent use of Object#is_a? or Object#kind_of?.

Example: EnforcedStyle: is_a? (default)

# bad
var.kind_of?(Date)
var.kind_of?(Integer)

# good
var.is_a?(Date)
var.is_a?(Integer)

Example: EnforcedStyle: kind_of?

# bad
var.is_a?(Time)
var.is_a?(String)

# good
var.kind_of?(Time)
var.kind_of?(String)

This cop can check for array literals made up of symbols that are not using the %i() syntax.

Alternatively, it checks for symbol arrays using the %i() syntax on projects which do not want to use that syntax.

Configuration option: MinSize If set, arrays with fewer elements than this value will not trigger the cop. For example, a MinSize of3` will not enforce a style on an array of 2 or fewer elements.

Example: EnforcedStyle: percent (default)

# good
%i[foo bar baz]

# bad
[:foo, :bar, :baz]

Example: EnforcedStyle: brackets

# good
[:foo, :bar, :baz]

# bad
%i[foo bar baz]

This cop (by default) checks for uses of the lambda literal syntax for single line lambdas, and the method call syntax for multiline lambdas. It is configurable to enforce one of the styles for both single line and multiline lambdas as well.

Example: EnforcedStyle: linecountdependent (default)

# bad
f = lambda { |x| x }
f = ->(x) do
      x
    end

# good
f = ->(x) { x }
f = lambda do |x|
      x
    end

Example: EnforcedStyle: lambda

# bad
f = ->(x) { x }
f = ->(x) do
      x
    end

# good
f = lambda { |x| x }
f = lambda do |x|
      x
    end

Example: EnforcedStyle: literal

# bad
f = lambda { |x| x }
f = lambda do |x|
      x
    end

# good
f = ->(x) { x }
f = ->(x) do
      x
    end

This cop checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

This cop checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

This cop checks whether some constant value isn't a mutable literal (e.g. array or hash).

Example:

# bad
CONST = [1, 2, 3]

# good
CONST = [1, 2, 3].freeze

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"

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"

This cop checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

Checks for simple usages of parallel assignment. This will only complain when the number of variables being assigned matched the number of assigning variables.

Example:

# bad
a, b, c = 1, 2, 3
a, b, c = [1, 2, 3]

# good
one, two = *foo
a, b = foo()
a, b = b, a

a = 1
b = 2
c = 3

This cop checks hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

This cop checks for assignments in the conditions of if/while/until.

Example:

# bad

if some_var = true
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

if some_var == true
  do_something
end

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 hash literal syntax.

It can enforce either the use of the class hash rocket syntax or the use of the newer Ruby 1.9 syntax (when applicable).

A separate offense is registered for each problematic pair.

The supported styles are:

• ruby19 - forces use of the 1.9 syntax (e.g. {a: 1}) when hashes have all symbols for keys
• hash_rockets - forces use of hash rockets for all hashes
• nomixedkeys - simply checks for hashes with mixed syntaxes
• ruby19nomixed_keys - forces use of ruby 1.9 syntax and forbids mixed syntax hashes

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19 (default)

# bad
{:a => 2}
{b: 1, :c => 2}

# good
{a: 2, b: 1}
{:c => 2, 'd' => 2} # acceptable since 'd' isn't a symbol
{d: 1, 'e' => 2} # technically not forbidden

Example: EnforcedStyle: hash_rockets

# bad
{a: 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 5}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: nomixedkeys

# bad
{:a => 1, b: 2}
{c: 1, 'd' => 2}

# good
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 1, d: 2}

Example: EnforcedStyle: ruby19nomixed_keys

# bad
{:a => 1, :b => 2}
{c: 2, 'd' => 3} # should just use hash rockets

# good
{a: 1, b: 2}
{:c => 3, 'd' => 4}

This cop checks for assignments in the conditions of if/while/until.

Example:

# bad

if some_var = true
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

if some_var == true
  do_something
end

This cop enforces consistent use of Object#is_a? or Object#kind_of?.

Example: EnforcedStyle: is_a? (default)

# bad
var.kind_of?(Date)
var.kind_of?(Integer)

# good
var.is_a?(Date)
var.is_a?(Integer)

Example: EnforcedStyle: kind_of?

# bad
var.is_a?(Time)
var.is_a?(String)

# good
var.kind_of?(Time)
var.kind_of?(String)

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