exports = module.exports = function decorate(req) {

  /**
   * Intiate a login session for `user`.
   *

Close

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

        done && done();

Close

Disallow Unused Expressions (no-unused-expressions)

An unused expression which has no effect on the state of the program indicates a logic error.

For example, n + 1; is not a syntax error, but it might be a typing mistake where a programmer meant an assignment statement n += 1; instead.

Rule Details

This rule aims to eliminate unused expressions which have no effect on the state of the program.

This rule does not apply to function calls or constructor calls with the new operator, because they could have side effects on the state of the program.

var i = 0;
function increment() { i += 1; }
increment(); // return value is unused, but i changed as a side effect

var nThings = 0;
function Thing() { nThings += 1; }
new Thing(); // constructed object is unused, but nThings changed as a side effect

This rule does not apply to directives (which are in the form of literal string expressions such as "use strict"; at the beginning of a script, module, or function).

Sequence expressions (those using a comma, such as a = 1, b = 2) are always considered unused unless their return value is assigned or used in a condition evaluation, or a function call is made with the sequence expression value.

Options

This rule, in its default state, does not require any arguments. If you would like to enable one or more of the following you may pass an object with the options set as follows:

• allowShortCircuit set to true will allow you to use short circuit evaluations in your expressions (Default: false).
• allowTernary set to true will enable you to use ternary operators in your expressions similarly to short circuit evaluations (Default: false).
• allowTaggedTemplates set to true will enable you to use tagged template literals in your expressions (Default: false).

These options allow unused expressions only if all of the code paths either directly change the state (for example, assignment statement) or could have side effects (for example, function call).

Examples of incorrect code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

0

if(0) 0

{0}

f(0), {}

a && b()

a, b()

c = a, b;

a() && function namedFunctionInExpressionContext () {f();}

(function anIncompleteIIFE () {});

injectGlobal`body{ color: red; }`

Note that one or more string expression statements (with or without semi-colons) will only be considered as unused if they are not in the beginning of a script, module, or function (alone and uninterrupted by other statements). Otherwise, they will be treated as part of a "directive prologue", a section potentially usable by JavaScript engines. This includes "strict mode" directives.

"use strict";
"use asm"
"use stricter";
"use babel"
"any other strings like this in the prologue";

Examples of correct code for the default { "allowShortCircuit": false, "allowTernary": false } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: "error"*/

{} // In this context, this is a block statement, not an object literal

{myLabel: someVar} // In this context, this is a block statement with a label and expression, not an object literal

function namedFunctionDeclaration () {}

(function aGenuineIIFE () {}());

f()

a = 0

new C

delete a.b

void a

allowShortCircuit

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a || b

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true }]*/

a && b()
a() || (b = c)

allowTernary

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b : 0
a ? b : c()

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTernary": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() : c()
a ? (b = c) : d()

allowShortCircuit and allowTernary

Examples of correct code for the { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true } options:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowShortCircuit": true, "allowTernary": true }]*/

a ? b() || (c = d) : e()

allowTaggedTemplates

Examples of incorrect code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

`some untagged template string`;

Examples of correct code for the { "allowTaggedTemplates": true } option:

/*eslint no-unused-expressions: ["error", { "allowTaggedTemplates": true }]*/

tag`some tagged template string`;

Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (typeof options == "function") { // arguments is user, done

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

        if (typeof done != "function") {

Close

Require === and !== (eqeqeq)

It is considered good practice to use the type-safe equality operators === and !== instead of their regular counterparts == and !=.

The reason for this is that == and != do type coercion which follows the rather obscure Abstract Equality Comparison Algorithm. For instance, the following statements are all considered true:

• [] == false
• [] == ![]
• 3 == "03"

If one of those occurs in an innocent-looking statement such as a == b the actual problem is very difficult to spot.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating the type-unsafe equality operators.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint eqeqeq: "error"*/

if (x == 42) { }

if ("" == text) { }

if (obj.getStuff() != undefined) { }

The --fix option on the command line automatically fixes some problems reported by this rule. A problem is only fixed if one of the operands is a typeof expression, or if both operands are literals with the same type.

Options

always

The "always" option (default) enforces the use of === and !== in every situation (except when you opt-in to more specific handling of null [see below]).

Examples of incorrect code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a == b
foo == true
bananas != 1
value == undefined
typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

Examples of correct code for the "always" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "always"]*/

a === b
foo === true
bananas !== 1
value === undefined
typeof foo === 'undefined'
'hello' !== 'world'
0 === 0
true === true
foo === null

This rule optionally takes a second argument, which should be an object with the following supported properties:

• "null": Customize how this rule treats null literals. Possible values:
  • always (default) - Always use === or !==.
  • never - Never use === or !== with null.
  • ignore - Do not apply this rule to null.

smart

The "smart" option enforces the use of === and !== except for these cases:

• Comparing two literal values
• Evaluating the value of typeof
• Comparing against null

Examples of incorrect code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

// comparing two variables requires ===
a == b

// only one side is a literal
foo == true
bananas != 1

// comparing to undefined requires ===
value == undefined

Examples of correct code for the "smart" option:

/*eslint eqeqeq: ["error", "smart"]*/

typeof foo == 'undefined'
'hello' != 'world'
0 == 0
true == true
foo == null

allow-null

Deprecated: Instead of using this option use "always" and pass a "null" option property with value "ignore". This will tell eslint to always enforce strict equality except when comparing with the null literal.

["error", "always", {"null": "ignore"}]

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to enforce a style for using equality operators, then it's safe to disable this rule. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

      if (this._passport && this._passport.instance) {
        property = this._passport.instance._userProperty || property;
      }

Close

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 46.

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

    if (this._passport && this._passport.instance) {
      property = this._passport.instance._userProperty || property;
    }

Close

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 46.

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

      if (this._passport && this._passport.instance) {
        property = this._passport.instance._userProperty || property;
      }

Close

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 46.

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