File client.rb
has 708 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
module Mongo
# The client is the entry point to the driver and is the main object that
# will be interacted with.
#
Method validate_options!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 71 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_options!(addresses = nil, is_srv: nil)
if options[:write] && options[:write_concern] && options[:write] != options[:write_concern]
raise ArgumentError, "If :write and :write_concern are both given, they must be identical: #{options.inspect}"
end
- Read upRead up
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
Method validate_new_options!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 49 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_new_options!(opts)
return Options::Redacted.new unless opts
if opts[:read_concern]
# Raise an error for non user-settable options
if opts[:read_concern][:after_cluster_time]
- Read upRead up
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
Class Client
has 47 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Client
extend Forwardable
include Loggable
# The options that do not affect the behavior of a cluster and its
Method validate_options!
has 104 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_options!(addresses = nil, is_srv: nil)
if options[:write] && options[:write_concern] && options[:write] != options[:write_concern]
raise ArgumentError, "If :write and :write_concern are both given, they must be identical: #{options.inspect}"
end
Method initialize
has a Cognitive Complexity of 27 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def initialize(addresses_or_uri, options = nil)
options = options ? options.dup : {}
srv_uri = nil
if addresses_or_uri.is_a?(::String)
- Read upRead up
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
Method initialize
has 91 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def initialize(addresses_or_uri, options = nil)
options = options ? options.dup : {}
srv_uri = nil
if addresses_or_uri.is_a?(::String)
Method validate_new_options!
has 59 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_new_options!(opts)
return Options::Redacted.new unless opts
if opts[:read_concern]
# Raise an error for non user-settable options
if opts[:read_concern][:after_cluster_time]
Method validate_authentication_options!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 16 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_authentication_options!
auth_mech = options[:auth_mech]
user = options[:user]
password = options[:password]
auth_source = options[:auth_source]
- Read upRead up
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
Method validate_authentication_options!
has 41 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_authentication_options!
auth_mech = options[:auth_mech]
user = options[:user]
password = options[:password]
auth_source = options[:auth_source]
Method validate_read!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 11 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_read!(option, opts)
if option == :read && opts.has_key?(:read)
read = opts[:read]
# We could check if read is a Hash, but this would fail
# for custom classes implementing key access ([]).
- Read upRead up
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
Method update_options
has 26 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def update_options(new_options)
old_options = @options
new_options = self.class.canonicalize_ruby_options(new_options || {})
Method update_options
has a Cognitive Complexity of 9 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def update_options(new_options)
old_options = @options
new_options = self.class.canonicalize_ruby_options(new_options || {})
- Read upRead up
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
Method canonicalize_ruby_options
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def canonicalize_ruby_options(options)
Options::Redacted.new(Hash[options.map do |k, v|
if k == :auth_mech_properties || k == 'auth_mech_properties'
if v
v = Hash[v.map { |pk, pv| [pk.downcase, pv] }]
- Read upRead up
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
Method validate_max_min_pool_size!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_max_min_pool_size!(option, opts)
if option == :min_pool_size && opts[:min_pool_size]
max = opts[:max_pool_size] || Server::ConnectionPool::DEFAULT_MAX_SIZE
if max != 0 && opts[:min_pool_size] > max
raise Error::InvalidMinPoolSize.new(opts[:min_pool_size], max)
- Read upRead up
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
Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_zstd_compression!
return if defined?(Zstd)
require 'zstd-ruby'
rescue LoadError => e
raise Error::UnmetDependency, "Cannot enable zstd compression because the zstd-ruby gem " \
- Read upRead up
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 26.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def validate_snappy_compression!
return if defined?(Snappy)
require 'snappy'
rescue LoadError => e
raise Error::UnmetDependency, "Cannot enable snappy compression because the snappy gem " \
- Read upRead up
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 26.
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