Showing 68 of 68 total issues
Method combine
has a Cognitive Complexity of 29 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def combine
log('Starting combine')
log("options : #{options.inspect}")
shares = []
- 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
Method split
has a Cognitive Complexity of 23 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def split
log('Starting split')
log('options : ' + options.inspect)
args = {}
- 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
Method combine
has 64 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def combine
log('Starting combine')
log("options : #{options.inspect}")
shares = []
Method split
has 55 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def split
log('Starting split')
log('options : ' + options.inspect)
args = {}
Block has too many lines. [47/25] Open
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.name = 'tss'
spec.version = TSS::VERSION
spec.authors = ['Glenn Rempe']
spec.email = ['glenn@rempe.us']
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.
Method combine
has a Cognitive Complexity of 15 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def combine
# unwrap 'human' shares into binary shares
if all_shares_appear_human?(shares)
@shares = convert_shares_human_to_binary(shares)
end
- 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
Method combine
has 40 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def combine
# unwrap 'human' shares into binary shares
if all_shares_appear_human?(shares)
@shares = convert_shares_human_to_binary(shares)
end
Method exit_if_binary!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 11 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def exit_if_binary!(str)
str.each_byte { |c|
# OK, 9 (TAB), 10 (CR), 13 (LF), >=32 for normal ASCII
# Usage of anything other than 10, 13, and 32-126 ASCII decimal codes
# looks as though contents are binary and not standard text.
- 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
Method extract_secret_from_shares!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 9 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def extract_secret_from_shares!(hash_id, shares_bytes)
secret = []
# build up an Array of index values from each share
# u[i] equal to the first octet of the ith share
- 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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
Contract ({ :secret => C::SecretArg, :threshold => C::Maybe[C::ThresholdArg], :num_shares => C::Maybe[C::NumSharesArg], :identifier => C::Maybe[C::IdentifierArg], :hash_alg => C::Maybe[C::HashAlgArg], :format => C::Maybe[C::FormatArg], :padding => C::Maybe[C::Bool] }) => C::ArrayOfShares
def self.split(opts)
- Read upRead up
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 44.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
Contract ({ :secret => C::SecretArg, :threshold => C::Maybe[C::ThresholdArg], :num_shares => C::Maybe[C::NumSharesArg], :identifier => C::Maybe[C::IdentifierArg], :hash_alg => C::Maybe[C::HashAlgArg], :format => C::Maybe[C::FormatArg], :padding => C::Maybe[C::Bool] }) => C::Any
def initialize(opts = {})
- Read upRead up
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 44.
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
Method unpad
has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.unpad(str, k = TSS::PADDING_BLOCK_SIZE_BYTES)
return str if k.zero?
str_bytes = str.is_a?(Array) ? str : TSS::Util.utf8_to_bytes(str)
val = str_bytes.last
raise 'Input is not padded or padding is corrupt' if val > k
- 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
Consider simplifying this complex logical expression. Open
if c < 9 || (c > 10 && c < 13) || (c > 13 && c < 32) || c == 127
err('STDIN secret appears to contain binary data.')
exit(1)
end
Method split
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def split
num_shares_not_less_than_threshold!(threshold, num_shares)
# Append needed PKCS#7 padding to the string
secret_padded = padding ? Util.pad(secret) : secret
- 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
Method convert_shares_human_to_binary
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def convert_shares_human_to_binary(shares)
shares.map do |s|
s_b64 = s.match(Util::HUMAN_SHARE_RE)
if s_b64.present? && s_b64.to_a[1].present?
begin
- 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
Method shares_bytes_have_valid_indexes!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def shares_bytes_have_valid_indexes!(shares_bytes)
u = shares_bytes.map do |s|
raise TSS::ArgumentError, 'invalid shares, no index' if s[0].blank?
raise TSS::ArgumentError, 'invalid shares, zero index' if s[0] == 0
s[0]
- 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
Use meaningful heredoc delimiters. Open
EOF
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that your heredocs are using meaningful delimiters.
By default it disallows END
and EO*
, and can be configured through
blacklisting additional delimiters.
Example:
# good
<<-SQL
SELECT * FROM foo
SQL
# bad
<<-END
SELECT * FROM foo
END
# bad
<<-EOS
SELECT * FROM foo
EOS
Missing magic comment # frozen_string_literal: true
. Open
require 'contracts'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop is designed to help upgrade to Ruby 3.0. It will add the
comment # frozen_string_literal: true
to the top of files to
enable frozen string literals. Frozen string literals may be default
in Ruby 3.0. The comment will be added below a shebang and encoding
comment. The frozen string literal comment is only valid in Ruby 2.3+.
Example: EnforcedStyle: when_needed (default)
# The `when_needed` style will add the frozen string literal comment
# to files only when the `TargetRubyVersion` is set to 2.3+.
# bad
module Foo
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Foo
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: always
# The `always` style will always add the frozen string literal comment
# to a file, regardless of the Ruby version or if `freeze` or `<<` are
# called on a string literal.
# bad
module Bar
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Bar
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: never
# The `never` will enforce that the frozen string literal comment does
# not exist in a file.
# bad
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Baz
# ...
end
# good
module Baz
# ...
end
Missing magic comment # frozen_string_literal: true
. Open
require 'active_support/core_ext/object/blank'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop is designed to help upgrade to Ruby 3.0. It will add the
comment # frozen_string_literal: true
to the top of files to
enable frozen string literals. Frozen string literals may be default
in Ruby 3.0. The comment will be added below a shebang and encoding
comment. The frozen string literal comment is only valid in Ruby 2.3+.
Example: EnforcedStyle: when_needed (default)
# The `when_needed` style will add the frozen string literal comment
# to files only when the `TargetRubyVersion` is set to 2.3+.
# bad
module Foo
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Foo
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: always
# The `always` style will always add the frozen string literal comment
# to a file, regardless of the Ruby version or if `freeze` or `<<` are
# called on a string literal.
# bad
module Bar
# ...
end
# good
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Bar
# ...
end
Example: EnforcedStyle: never
# The `never` will enforce that the frozen string literal comment does
# not exist in a file.
# bad
# frozen_string_literal: true
module Baz
# ...
end
# good
module Baz
# ...
end
Dependencies should be sorted in an alphabetical order within their section of the gemspec. Dependency binary_struct
should appear before contracts
. Open
spec.add_dependency 'binary_struct', '~> 2.1'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Dependencies in the gemspec should be alphabetically sorted.
Example:
# bad
spec.add_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_dependency 'rspec'
# good
spec.add_dependency 'rspec'
spec.add_dependency 'rubocop'
# good
spec.add_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_dependency 'rspec'
# bad
spec.add_development_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_development_dependency 'rspec'
# good
spec.add_development_dependency 'rspec'
spec.add_development_dependency 'rubocop'
# good
spec.add_development_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_development_dependency 'rspec'
# bad
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rspec'
# good
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rspec'
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rubocop'
# good
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rubocop'
spec.add_runtime_dependency 'rspec'
# good only if TreatCommentsAsGroupSeparators is true
# For code quality
spec.add_dependency 'rubocop'
# For tests
spec.add_dependency 'rspec'