Unvalidated redirects and forwards are #10 on the OWASP Top Ten.

Redirects which rely on user-supplied values can be used to "spoof" websites or hide malicious links in otherwise harmless-looking URLs. They can also allow access to restricted areas of a site if the destination is not validated.

Brakeman will raise warnings whenever redirect_to appears to be used with a user-supplied value that may allow them to change the :host option.

For example,

redirect_to params.merge(:action => :home)

will create a warning like

Possible unprotected redirect near line 46: redirect_to(params)

This is because params could contain :host => 'evilsite.com' which would redirect away from your site and to a malicious site.

If the first argument to redirect_to is a hash, then adding :only_path => true will limit the redirect to the current host. Another option is to specify the host explicitly.

redirect_to params.merge(:only_path => true)

redirect_to params.merge(:host => 'myhost.com')

If the first argument is a string, then it is possible to parse the string and extract the path:

redirect_to URI.parse(some_url).path

If the URL does not contain a protocol (e.g., http://), then you will probably get unexpected results, as redirect_to will prepend the current host name and a protocol.

This cop checks if the length a class exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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.

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

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

This cop checks for uses of each_key and each_value Hash methods.

Note: If you have an array of two-element arrays, you can put parentheses around the block arguments to indicate that you're not working with a hash, and suppress RuboCop offenses.

Example:

# bad
hash.keys.each { |k| p k }
hash.values.each { |v| p v }
hash.each { |k, _v| p k }
hash.each { |_k, v| p v }

# good
hash.each_key { |k| p k }
hash.each_value { |v| p v }

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

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

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

This cop looks for unless expressions with else clauses.

Example:

# bad
unless foo_bar.nil?
  # do something...
else
  # do a different thing...
end

# good
if foo_bar.present?
  # do something...
else
  # do a different thing...
end

Checks for if and unless statements that would fit on one line if written as a modifier if/unless. The maximum line length is configured in the Metrics/LineLength cop.

Example:

# bad
if condition
  do_stuff(bar)
end

unless qux.empty?
  Foo.do_something
end

# good
do_stuff(bar) if condition
Foo.do_something unless qux.empty?

This cop enforces the use the shorthand for self-assignment.

Example:

# bad
x = x + 1

# good
x += 1

Checks for uses of if with a negated condition. Only ifs without else are considered. There are three different styles:

- both
- prefix
- postfix

Example: EnforcedStyle: both (default)

# enforces `unless` for `prefix` and `postfix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefix

# enforces `unless` for just `prefix` conditionals

# bad

if !foo
  bar
end

# good

unless foo
  bar
end

# good

bar if !foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: postfix

# enforces `unless` for just `postfix` conditionals

# bad

bar if !foo

# good

bar unless foo

# good

if !foo
  bar
end

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

This cop checks for numeric comparisons that can be replaced by a predicate method, such as receiver.length == 0, receiver.length > 0, receiver.length != 0, receiver.length < 1 and receiver.size == 0 that can be replaced by receiver.empty? and !receiver.empty.

Example:

# bad
[1, 2, 3].length == 0
0 == "foobar".length
array.length < 1
{a: 1, b: 2}.length != 0
string.length > 0
hash.size > 0

# good
[1, 2, 3].empty?
"foobar".empty?
array.empty?
!{a: 1, b: 2}.empty?
!string.empty?
!hash.empty?

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok