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

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

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

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a function is to understand. Functions with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a function is to understand. Functions with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Having too many return statements in a function increases the function's essential complexity because the flow of execution is broken each time a return statement is encountered. This makes it harder to read and understand the logic of the function.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function myFunction(){ // Noncompliant as there are 4 return statements
  if (condition1) {
    return true;
  } else {
    if (condition2) {
      return false;
    } else {
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
}

A class that grows too much tends to aggregate too many responsibilities and inevitably becomes harder to understand and therefore to maintain. Above a specific threshold, it is strongly advised to refactor the class into smaller ones which focus on well defined topics.

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a function is to understand. Functions with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

A function that grows too large tends to aggregate too many responsibilities.

Such functions inevitably become harder to understand and therefore harder to maintain.

Above a specific threshold, it is strongly advised to refactor into smaller functions which focus on well-defined tasks.

Those smaller functions will not only be easier to understand, but also probably easier to test.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

The requirement for a final case default clause is defensive programming. The clause should either take appropriate action, or contain a suitable comment as to why no action is taken. Even when the switch covers all current values of an enum, a default case should still be used because there is no guarantee that the enum won't be extended.

Noncompliant Code Example

switch ($param) {  //missing default clause
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
}

switch ($param) {
  default: // default clause should be the last one
    error();
    break;
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
}

Compliant Solution

switch ($param) {
  case 0:
    do_something();
    break;
  case 1:
    do_something_else();
    break;
  default:
    error();
    break;
}

See

• MISRA C:2004, 15.0 - The MISRA C switch syntax shall be used.
• MISRA C:2004, 15.3 - The final clause of a switch statement shall be the default clause
• MISRA C++:2008, 6-4-3 - A switch statement shall be a well-formed switch statement.
• MISRA C++:2008, 6-4-6 - The final clause of a switch statement shall be the default-clause
• MISRA C:2012, 16.1 - All switch statements shall be well-formed
• MISRA C:2012, 16.4 - Every switch statement shall have a default label
• MISRA C:2012, 16.5 - A default label shall appear as either the first or the last switch label of a switch statement
• MITRE, CWE-478 - Missing Default Case in Switch Statement
• CERT, MSC01-C. - Strive for logical completeness
• CERT, MSC01-CPP. - Strive for logical completeness

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

private methods that are never executed are dead code: unnecessary, inoperative code that should be removed. Cleaning out dead code decreases the size of the maintained codebase, making it easier to understand the program and preventing bugs from being introduced.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Foo
{
  private function Foo() {}   // Compliant, private empty constructor intentionally used to prevent any direct instantiation of a class.

  public static function doSomething()
  {
    $foo = new Foo();
    ...
  }

  private function unusedPrivateFunction() {  // Noncompliant
  }
}

Compliant Solution

public class Foo
{
  private function Foo(){}   // Compliant, private empty constructor intentionally used to prevent any direct instantiation of a class.

  public static function doSomething()
  {
    $foo = new Foo();
  }
}

See

• CERT, MSC07-CPP. - Detect and remove dead code

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 183.

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