Injection is #1 on the 2013 OWASP Top Ten web security risks. SQL injection is when a user is able to manipulate a value which is used unsafely inside a SQL query. This can lead to data leaks, data loss, elevation of privilege, and other unpleasant outcomes.

Brakeman focuses on ActiveRecord methods dealing with building SQL statements.

A basic (Rails 2.x) example looks like this:

User.first(:conditions => "username = '#{params[:username]}'")

Brakeman would produce a warning like this:

Possible SQL injection near line 30: User.first(:conditions => ("username = '#{params[:username]}'"))

The safe way to do this query is to use a parameterized query:

User.first(:conditions => ["username = ?", params[:username]])

Brakeman also understands the new Rails 3.x way of doing things (and local variables and concatenation):

username = params[:user][:name].downcase
password = params[:user][:password]

User.first.where("username = '" + username + "' AND password = '" + password + "'")

This results in this kind of warning:

Possible SQL injection near line 37:
User.first.where((((("username = '" + params[:user][:name].downcase) + "' AND password = '") + params[:user][:password]) + "'"))

See the Ruby Security Guide for more information and Rails-SQLi.org for many examples of SQL injection in Rails.

Mass assignment is a feature of Rails which allows an application to create a record from the values of a hash.

Example:

User.new(params[:user])

Unfortunately, if there is a user field called admin which controls administrator access, now any user can make themselves an administrator.

attr_accessible and attr_protected can be used to limit mass assignment. However, Brakeman will warn unless attr_accessible is used, or mass assignment is completely disabled.

There are two different mass assignment warnings which can arise. The first is when mass assignment actually occurs, such as the example above. This results in a warning like

Unprotected mass assignment near line 61: User.new(params[:user])

The other warning is raised whenever a model is found which does not use attr_accessible. This produces generic warnings like

Mass assignment is not restricted using attr_accessible

with a list of affected models.

In Rails 3.1 and newer, mass assignment can easily be disabled:

config.active_record.whitelist_attributes = true

Unfortunately, it can also easily be bypassed:

User.new(params[:user], :without_protection => true)

Brakeman will warn on uses of without_protection.

Injection is #1 on the 2013 OWASP Top Ten web security risks. SQL injection is when a user is able to manipulate a value which is used unsafely inside a SQL query. This can lead to data leaks, data loss, elevation of privilege, and other unpleasant outcomes.

Brakeman focuses on ActiveRecord methods dealing with building SQL statements.

A basic (Rails 2.x) example looks like this:

User.first(:conditions => "username = '#{params[:username]}'")

Brakeman would produce a warning like this:

Possible SQL injection near line 30: User.first(:conditions => ("username = '#{params[:username]}'"))

The safe way to do this query is to use a parameterized query:

User.first(:conditions => ["username = ?", params[:username]])

Brakeman also understands the new Rails 3.x way of doing things (and local variables and concatenation):

username = params[:user][:name].downcase
password = params[:user][:password]

User.first.where("username = '" + username + "' AND password = '" + password + "'")

This results in this kind of warning:

Possible SQL injection near line 37:
User.first.where((((("username = '" + params[:user][:name].downcase) + "' AND password = '") + params[:user][:password]) + "'"))

See the Ruby Security Guide for more information and Rails-SQLi.org for many examples of SQL injection in Rails.

This cop checks if the length a module 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

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.

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 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

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

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 block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

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

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

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 }

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 }

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 }

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 }

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 70.

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 42.

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 33.

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 32.

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 32.

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

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

This cop checks for braces around the last parameter in a method call if the last parameter is a hash. It supports braces, no_braces and context_dependent styles.

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# The `braces` style enforces braces around all method
# parameters that are hashes.

# bad
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_braces (default)

# The `no_braces` style checks that the last parameter doesn't
# have braces around it.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: context_dependent

# The `context_dependent` style checks that the last parameter
# doesn't have braces around it, but requires braces if the
# second to last parameter is also a hash literal.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 1, b: 2})

This cop checks for the use of Kernel#eval and Binding#eval.

Example:

# bad

eval(something)
binding.eval(something)

This cop checks for non-ascii (non-English) characters in comments. You could set an array of allowed non-ascii chars in AllowedChars attribute (empty by default).

Example:

# bad
# Translates from English to 日本語。

# good
# Translates from English to Japanese

Checks for simple usages of parallel assignment. This will only complain when the number of variables being assigned matched the number of assigning variables.

Example:

# bad
a, b, c = 1, 2, 3
a, b, c = [1, 2, 3]

# good
one, two = *foo
a, b = foo()
a, b = b, a

a = 1
b = 2
c = 3

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

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

Example:

# bad
x = x + 1

# good
x += 1

This cop checks for non-ascii (non-English) characters in comments. You could set an array of allowed non-ascii chars in AllowedChars attribute (empty by default).

Example:

# bad
# Translates from English to 日本語。

# good
# Translates from English to Japanese

This cop checks for braces around the last parameter in a method call if the last parameter is a hash. It supports braces, no_braces and context_dependent styles.

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# The `braces` style enforces braces around all method
# parameters that are hashes.

# bad
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_braces (default)

# The `no_braces` style checks that the last parameter doesn't
# have braces around it.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: context_dependent

# The `context_dependent` style checks that the last parameter
# doesn't have braces around it, but requires braces if the
# second to last parameter is also a hash literal.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 1, b: 2})

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

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

This cop enforces using // or %r around regular expressions.

Example: EnforcedStyle: slashes (default)

# bad
snake_case = %r{^[\dA-Z_]+$}

# bad
regex = %r{
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
}x

# good
snake_case = /^[\dA-Z_]+$/

# good
regex = /
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
/x

Example: EnforcedStyle: percent_r

# bad
snake_case = /^[\dA-Z_]+$/

# bad
regex = /
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
/x

# good
snake_case = %r{^[\dA-Z_]+$}

# good
regex = %r{
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
}x

Example: EnforcedStyle: mixed

# bad
snake_case = %r{^[\dA-Z_]+$}

# bad
regex = /
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
/x

# good
snake_case = /^[\dA-Z_]+$/

# good
regex = %r{
  foo
  (bar)
  (baz)
}x

Example: AllowInnerSlashes: false (default)

# If `false`, the cop will always recommend using `%r` if one or more
# slashes are found in the regexp string.

# bad
x =~ /home\//

# good
x =~ %r{home/}

Example: AllowInnerSlashes: true

# good
x =~ /home\//

This cop checks for non-ascii (non-English) characters in comments. You could set an array of allowed non-ascii chars in AllowedChars attribute (empty by default).

Example:

# bad
# Translates from English to 日本語。

# good
# Translates from English to Japanese

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

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

This cop looks for uses of Perl-style regexp match backreferences like $1, $2, etc.

Example:

# bad
puts $1

# good
puts Regexp.last_match(1)

This cop checks for rescuing StandardError. There are two supported styles implicit and explicit. This cop will not register an offense if any error other than StandardError is specified.

Example: EnforcedStyle: implicit

# `implicit` will enforce using `rescue` instead of
# `rescue StandardError`.

# bad
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue OtherError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError, SecurityError
  bar
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: explicit (default)

# `explicit` will enforce using `rescue StandardError`
# instead of `rescue`.

# bad
begin
  foo
rescue
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue OtherError
  bar
end

# good
begin
  foo
rescue StandardError, SecurityError
  bar
end

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?

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

Checks for uses of if/unless modifiers with multiple-lines bodies.

Example:

# bad
{
  result: 'this should not happen'
} unless cond

# good
{ result: 'ok' } if cond

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 symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)

This cop checks for non-ascii (non-English) characters in comments. You could set an array of allowed non-ascii chars in AllowedChars attribute (empty by default).

Example:

# bad
# Translates from English to 日本語。

# good
# Translates from English to Japanese

If the else branch of a conditional consists solely of an if node, it can be combined with the else to become an elsif. This helps to keep the nesting level from getting too deep.

Example:

# bad
if condition_a
  action_a
else
  if condition_b
    action_b
  else
    action_c
  end
end

# good
if condition_a
  action_a
elsif condition_b
  action_b
else
  action_c
end

This cop checks for uses of rescue in its modifier form.

Example:

# bad
some_method rescue handle_error

# good
begin
  some_method
rescue
  handle_error
end

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

This cop checks for braces around the last parameter in a method call if the last parameter is a hash. It supports braces, no_braces and context_dependent styles.

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# The `braces` style enforces braces around all method
# parameters that are hashes.

# bad
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_braces (default)

# The `no_braces` style checks that the last parameter doesn't
# have braces around it.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: context_dependent

# The `context_dependent` style checks that the last parameter
# doesn't have braces around it, but requires braces if the
# second to last parameter is also a hash literal.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 1, b: 2})

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

This cop transforms usages of a method call safeguarded by a non nil check for the variable whose method is being called to safe navigation (&.).

Configuration option: ConvertCodeThatCanStartToReturnNil The default for this is false. When configured to true, this will check for code in the format !foo.nil? && foo.bar. As it is written, the return of this code is limited to false and whatever the return of the method is. If this is converted to safe navigation, foo&.bar can start returning nil as well as what the method returns.

Example:

# bad
foo.bar if foo
foo.bar(param1, param2) if foo
foo.bar { |e| e.something } if foo
foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something } if foo

foo.bar if !foo.nil?
foo.bar unless !foo
foo.bar unless foo.nil?

foo && foo.bar
foo && foo.bar(param1, param2)
foo && foo.bar { |e| e.something }
foo && foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

# good
foo&.bar
foo&.bar(param1, param2)
foo&.bar { |e| e.something }
foo&.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

foo.nil? || foo.bar
!foo || foo.bar

# Methods that `nil` will `respond_to?` should not be converted to
# use safe navigation
foo.to_i if foo

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

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 symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)

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

This cop enforces the consistent usage of %-literal delimiters.

Specify the 'default' key to set all preferred delimiters at once. You can continue to specify individual preferred delimiters to override the default.

Example:

# Style/PercentLiteralDelimiters:
#   PreferredDelimiters:
#     default: '[]'
#     '%i':    '()'

# good
%w[alpha beta] + %i(gamma delta)

# bad
%W(alpha #{beta})

# bad
%I(alpha beta)

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

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

This cop looks for uses of Perl-style regexp match backreferences like $1, $2, etc.

Example:

# bad
puts $1

# good
puts Regexp.last_match(1)

This cop checks for uses of rescue in its modifier form.

Example:

# bad
some_method rescue handle_error

# good
begin
  some_method
rescue
  handle_error
end

Use symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)

Use next to skip iteration instead of a condition at the end.

Example: EnforcedStyle: skipmodifierifs (default)

# bad
[1, 2].each do |a|
  if a == 1
    puts a
  end
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |a|
  next unless a == 1
  puts a
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |o|
  puts o unless o == 1
end

Example: EnforcedStyle: always

# With `always` all conditions at the end of an iteration needs to be
# replaced by next - with `skip_modifier_ifs` the modifier if like
# this one are ignored: `[1, 2].each { |a| return 'yes' if a == 1 }`

# bad
[1, 2].each do |o|
  puts o unless o == 1
end

# bad
[1, 2].each do |a|
  if a == 1
    puts a
  end
end

# good
[1, 2].each do |a|
  next unless a == 1
  puts a
end

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

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

Example:

# bad
x = x + 1

# good
x += 1

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?

This cop checks for the use of YAML class methods which have potential security issues leading to remote code execution when loading from an untrusted source.

Example:

# bad
YAML.load("--- foo")

# good
YAML.safe_load("--- foo")
YAML.dump("foo")

This cop checks for non-ascii (non-English) characters in comments. You could set an array of allowed non-ascii chars in AllowedChars attribute (empty by default).

Example:

# bad
# Translates from English to 日本語。

# good
# Translates from English to Japanese

If the else branch of a conditional consists solely of an if node, it can be combined with the else to become an elsif. This helps to keep the nesting level from getting too deep.

Example:

# bad
if condition_a
  action_a
else
  if condition_b
    action_b
  else
    action_c
  end
end

# good
if condition_a
  action_a
elsif condition_b
  action_b
else
  action_c
end

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 symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)

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

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

This cop transforms usages of a method call safeguarded by a non nil check for the variable whose method is being called to safe navigation (&.).

Configuration option: ConvertCodeThatCanStartToReturnNil The default for this is false. When configured to true, this will check for code in the format !foo.nil? && foo.bar. As it is written, the return of this code is limited to false and whatever the return of the method is. If this is converted to safe navigation, foo&.bar can start returning nil as well as what the method returns.

Example:

# bad
foo.bar if foo
foo.bar(param1, param2) if foo
foo.bar { |e| e.something } if foo
foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something } if foo

foo.bar if !foo.nil?
foo.bar unless !foo
foo.bar unless foo.nil?

foo && foo.bar
foo && foo.bar(param1, param2)
foo && foo.bar { |e| e.something }
foo && foo.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

# good
foo&.bar
foo&.bar(param1, param2)
foo&.bar { |e| e.something }
foo&.bar(param) { |e| e.something }

foo.nil? || foo.bar
!foo || foo.bar

# Methods that `nil` will `respond_to?` should not be converted to
# use safe navigation
foo.to_i if foo

Use symbols as procs when possible.

Example:

# bad
something.map { |s| s.upcase }

# good
something.map(&:upcase)