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

A long parameter list can indicate that a new structure should be created to wrap the numerous parameters or that the function is doing too many things.

Noncompliant Code Example

With a maximum number of 4 parameters:

function doSomething($param1, $param2, $param3, $param4, $param5) {
...
}

Compliant Solution

function doSomething($param1, $param2, $param3, $param4) {
...
}

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

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

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.

Unused parameters are misleading. Whatever the value passed to such parameters is, the behavior will be the same.

Noncompliant Code Example

function doSomething($a, $b) { // "$a" is unused
  return compute($b);
}

Compliant Solution

function doSomething($b) {
  return compute($b);
}

Exceptions

Functions in classes that override a class or implement interfaces are ignored.

class C extends B {

  function doSomething($a, $b) {     // no issue reported on $b
    compute($a);
  }

}

See

• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-11 - There shall be no unused parameters (named or unnamed) in nonvirtual functions.
• MISRA C:2012, 2.7 - There should be no unused parameters in functions
• CERT, MSC12-C. - Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed
• CERT, MSC12-CPP. - Detect and remove code that has no effect

Unused parameters are misleading. Whatever the value passed to such parameters is, the behavior will be the same.

Noncompliant Code Example

function doSomething($a, $b) { // "$a" is unused
  return compute($b);
}

Compliant Solution

function doSomething($b) {
  return compute($b);
}

Exceptions

Functions in classes that override a class or implement interfaces are ignored.

class C extends B {

  function doSomething($a, $b) {     // no issue reported on $b
    compute($a);
  }

}

See

• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-11 - There shall be no unused parameters (named or unnamed) in nonvirtual functions.
• MISRA C:2012, 2.7 - There should be no unused parameters in functions
• CERT, MSC12-C. - Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed
• CERT, MSC12-CPP. - Detect and remove code that has no effect

Unused parameters are misleading. Whatever the value passed to such parameters is, the behavior will be the same.

Noncompliant Code Example

function doSomething($a, $b) { // "$a" is unused
  return compute($b);
}

Compliant Solution

function doSomething($b) {
  return compute($b);
}

Exceptions

Functions in classes that override a class or implement interfaces are ignored.

class C extends B {

  function doSomething($a, $b) {     // no issue reported on $b
    compute($a);
  }

}

See

• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-11 - There shall be no unused parameters (named or unnamed) in nonvirtual functions.
• MISRA C:2012, 2.7 - There should be no unused parameters in functions
• CERT, MSC12-C. - Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed
• CERT, MSC12-CPP. - Detect and remove code that has no effect

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"

Unused parameters are misleading. Whatever the value passed to such parameters is, the behavior will be the same.

Noncompliant Code Example

function doSomething($a, $b) { // "$a" is unused
  return compute($b);
}

Compliant Solution

function doSomething($b) {
  return compute($b);
}

Exceptions

Functions in classes that override a class or implement interfaces are ignored.

class C extends B {

  function doSomething($a, $b) {     // no issue reported on $b
    compute($a);
  }

}

See

• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-11 - There shall be no unused parameters (named or unnamed) in nonvirtual functions.
• MISRA C:2012, 2.7 - There should be no unused parameters in functions
• CERT, MSC12-C. - Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed
• CERT, MSC12-CPP. - Detect and remove code that has no effect

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"

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 94.

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

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 94.

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