Cyclomatic complexity for format_date is too high. [7/6] Open
def format_date(date)
return nil if date.nil?
valid_semantic_date = %w[today yesterday].include? date
valid_date_string = (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/) == 0
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Perceived complexity for format_date is too high. [8/7] Open
def format_date(date)
return nil if date.nil?
valid_semantic_date = %w[today yesterday].include? date
valid_date_string = (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/) == 0
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Method format_date
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def format_date(date)
return nil if date.nil?
valid_semantic_date = %w[today yesterday].include? date
valid_date_string = (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/) == 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
Missing top-level class documentation comment. Open
class Client
- 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
# ...
end
Use (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/).zero?
instead of (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/) == 0
. Open
valid_date_string = (date =~ /\d{4}\-\d{2}\-\d{2}/) == 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
Line is too long. [162/120] Open
raise FitgemOauth2::InvalidDateArgument, "Date used must be a date/time object or a string in the format YYYY-MM-DD; supplied argument is a #{date.class}"
- Exclude checks
Line is too long. [161/120] Open
raise FitgemOauth2::InvalidTimeArgument, "Time used must be a DateTime/Time object or a string in the format hh:mm; supplied argument is a #{time.class}"
- Exclude checks
Avoid the use of the case equality operator ===
. Open
if semantic === 'yesterday'
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for uses of the case equality operator(===).
Example:
# bad
Array === something
(1..100) === 7
/something/ === some_string
# good
something.is_a?(Array)
(1..100).include?(7)
some_string =~ /something/
Use (time =~ /\d{2}:\d{2}/).zero?
instead of (time =~ /\d{2}:\d{2}/) == 0
. Open
if (time =~ /\d{2}:\d{2}/) == 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