Showing 10 of 10 total issues
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
provideContext(ctx: MetaContext | Observable<MetaContext>) {
this.metaContext$$.next(isObservable(ctx) ? ctx : of(ctx));
}
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 59.
We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.
The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.
If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.
See codeclimate-duplication
's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml
.
Refactorings
- Extract Method
- Extract Class
- Form Template Method
- Introduce Null Object
- Pull Up Method
- Pull Up Field
- Substitute Algorithm
Further Reading
- Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
- Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
- Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
provideDefaultContext(ctx: MetaContext | Observable<MetaContext>) {
this.metaDefaultContext$$.next(isObservable(ctx) ? ctx : of(ctx));
}
- 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 59.
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
Function updateAllMeta
has 30 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
private updateAllMeta(data: Data, ctx: ProcessedMetaContext = {}) {
const { _templates_: defaultTemplates, ...defaultAllMeta } =
this.defaultMeta;
if (!isDataWithMeta(data)) {
Function _templateStr
has a Cognitive Complexity of 10 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
_templateStr(
str?: string,
data?: ProcessedMetaContext,
extras?: {
name?: string;
- 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
marked
Regular Expression Denial of Service Open
"marked": {
"version": "4.0.17",
"resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/marked/-/marked-4.0.17.tgz",
"integrity": "sha512-Wfk0ATOK5iPxM4ptrORkFemqroz0ZDxp5MWfYA7H/F+wO17NRWV5Ypxi6p3g2Xmw2bKeiYOl6oVnLHKxBA0VhA==",
"dev": true
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Regular Expression Denial of Service
Overview:
The marked module is vulnerable to a regular expression denial of service. Based on the information published in the public issue, 1k characters can block for around 6 seconds.
Recommendation:
Consider another markdown parser until the issue can be addressed.
Array type using 'Array<t>' is forbidden. Use 'T[]' instead.</t> Open
export type InferArray<A> = A extends Array<infer T> ? T : never;
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Rule: array-type
Requires using either 'T[]' or 'Array<t>' for arrays.</t>
Notes
- TypeScript Only
- Has Fix
Config
One of the following arguments must be provided:
-
"array"
enforces use ofT[]
for all types T. -
"generic"
enforces use ofArray<T>
for all types T. -
"array-simple"
enforces use ofT[]
ifT
is a simple type (primitive or type reference).
Examples
"array-type": true,array
"array-type": true,generic
"array-type": true,array-simple
Schema
{
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"array",
"generic",
"array-simple"
]
}
For more information see this page.
Type assertion on object literals is forbidden, use a type annotation instead. Open
startWith({} as R),
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Type assertion on object literals is forbidden, use a type annotation instead. Open
const templates = {
...defaultTemplates,
..._templates_,
} as RouteMetaTemplates;
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Type assertion on object literals is forbidden, use a type annotation instead. Open
}, {} as ProcessedMetaContext);
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Type assertion on object literals is forbidden, use a type annotation instead. Open
{} as ProcessedMetaContext,
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.