Disallow eval() (no-eval)

JavaScript's eval() function is potentially dangerous and is often misused. Using eval() on untrusted code can open a program up to several different injection attacks. The use of eval() in most contexts can be substituted for a better, alternative approach to a problem.

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing potentially dangerous, unnecessary, and slow code by disallowing the use of the eval() function. As such, it will warn whenever the eval() function is used.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

// This `this` is the global object.
this.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when browser environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

Example of additional incorrect code for this rule when node environment is set to true:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = obj[key];

class A {
    foo() {
        // This is a user-defined method.
        this.eval("var a = 0");
    }

    eval() {
    }
}

Options

This rule has an option to allow indirect calls to eval. Indirect calls to eval are less dangerous than direct calls to eval because they cannot dynamically change the scope. Because of this, they also will not negatively impact performance to the degree of direct eval.

{
    "no-eval": ["error", {"allowIndirect": true}] // default is false
}

Example of incorrect code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

var obj = { x: "foo" },
    key = "x",
    value = eval("obj." + key);

Examples of correct code for this rule with the {"allowIndirect": true} option:

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/

(0, eval)("var a = 0");

var foo = eval;
foo("var a = 0");

this.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

window.eval("var a = 0");

/*eslint no-eval: "error"*/
/*eslint-env node*/

global.eval("var a = 0");

Known Limitations

• This rule is warning every eval() even if the eval is not global's. This behavior is in order to detect calls of direct eval. Such as:

module.exports = function(eval) {
      // If the value of this `eval` is built-in `eval` function, this is a
      // call of direct `eval`.
      eval("var a = 0");
  };

• This rule cannot catch renaming the global object. Such as:

var foo = window;
  foo.eval("var a = 0");

Further Reading

• Eval is Evil, Part One
• How evil is eval

Related Rules

• [no-implied-eval](no-implied-eval.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

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

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

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

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

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

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

enforce a maximum number of statements allowed in function blocks (max-statements)

The max-statements rule allows you to specify the maximum number of statements allowed in a function.

function foo() {
  var bar = 1; // one statement
  var baz = 2; // two statements
  var qux = 3; // three statements
}

Rule Details

This rule enforces a maximum number of statements allowed in function blocks.

Options

This rule has a number or object option:

• "max" (default 10) enforces a maximum number of statements allows in function blocks

Deprecated: The object property maximum is deprecated; please use the object property max instead.

This rule has an object option:

• "ignoreTopLevelFunctions": true ignores top-level functions

max

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default { "max": 10 } option:

/*eslint max-statements: ["error", 10]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

function foo() {
  var foo1 = 1;
  var foo2 = 2;
  var foo3 = 3;
  var foo4 = 4;
  var foo5 = 5;
  var foo6 = 6;
  var foo7 = 7;
  var foo8 = 8;
  var foo9 = 9;
  var foo10 = 10;

  var foo11 = 11; // Too many.
}

let foo = () => {
  var foo1 = 1;
  var foo2 = 2;
  var foo3 = 3;
  var foo4 = 4;
  var foo5 = 5;
  var foo6 = 6;
  var foo7 = 7;
  var foo8 = 8;
  var foo9 = 9;
  var foo10 = 10;

  var foo11 = 11; // Too many.
};

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default { "max": 10 } option:

/*eslint max-statements: ["error", 10]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

function foo() {
  var foo1 = 1;
  var foo2 = 2;
  var foo3 = 3;
  var foo4 = 4;
  var foo5 = 5;
  var foo6 = 6;
  var foo7 = 7;
  var foo8 = 8;
  var foo9 = 9;
  var foo10 = 10;
  return function () {

    // The number of statements in the inner function does not count toward the
    // statement maximum.

    return 42;
  };
}

let foo = () => {
  var foo1 = 1;
  var foo2 = 2;
  var foo3 = 3;
  var foo4 = 4;
  var foo5 = 5;
  var foo6 = 6;
  var foo7 = 7;
  var foo8 = 8;
  var foo9 = 9;
  var foo10 = 10;
  return function () {

    // The number of statements in the inner function does not count toward the
    // statement maximum.

    return 42;
  };
}

ignoreTopLevelFunctions

Examples of additional correct code for this rule with the { "max": 10 }, { "ignoreTopLevelFunctions": true } options:

/*eslint max-statements: ["error", 10, { "ignoreTopLevelFunctions": true }]*/

function foo() {
  var foo1 = 1;
  var foo2 = 2;
  var foo3 = 3;
  var foo4 = 4;
  var foo5 = 5;
  var foo6 = 6;
  var foo7 = 7;
  var foo8 = 8;
  var foo9 = 9;
  var foo10 = 10;
  var foo11 = 11;
}

Related Rules

• [complexity](complexity.md)
• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Limit Cyclomatic Complexity (complexity)

Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of linearly independent paths through a program's source code. This rule allows setting a cyclomatic complexity threshold.

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x; // 1st path
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1; // 2nd path
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at reducing code complexity by capping the amount of cyclomatic complexity allowed in a program. As such, it will warn when the cyclomatic complexity crosses the configured threshold (default is 20).

Examples of incorrect code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else if (false) {
        return x+1;
    } else {
        return 4; // 3rd path
    }
}

Examples of correct code for a maximum of 2:

/*eslint complexity: ["error", 2]*/

function a(x) {
    if (true) {
        return x;
    } else {
        return 4;
    }
}

Options

Optionally, you may specify a max object property:

"complexity": ["error", 2]

is equivalent to

"complexity": ["error", { "max": 2 }]

Deprecated: the object property maximum is deprecated. Please use the property max instead.

When Not To Use It

If you can't determine an appropriate complexity limit for your code, then it's best to disable this rule.

Further Reading

• About Complexity
• Complexity Analysis of JavaScript Code

Related Rules

• [max-depth](max-depth.md)
• [max-len](max-len.md)
• [max-nested-callbacks](max-nested-callbacks.md)
• [max-params](max-params.md)
• [max-statements](max-statements.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

• Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
• Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
• Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

Cognitive Complexity

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

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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/

Disallow Functions in Loops (no-loop-func)

Writing functions within loops tends to result in errors due to the way the function creates a closure around the loop. For example:

for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    funcs[i] = function() {
        return i;
    };
}

In this case, you would expect each function created within the loop to return a different number. In reality, each function returns 10, because that was the last value of i in the scope.

let or const mitigate this problem.

/*eslint-env es6*/

for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    funcs[i] = function() {
        return i;
    };
}

In this case, each function created within the loop returns a different number as expected.

Rule Details

This error is raised to highlight a piece of code that may not work as you expect it to and could also indicate a misunderstanding of how the language works. Your code may run without any problems if you do not fix this error, but in some situations it could behave unexpectedly.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-loop-func: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

for (var i=10; i; i--) {
    (function() { return i; })();
}

while(i) {
    var a = function() { return i; };
    a();
}

do {
    function a() { return i; };
    a();
} while (i);

let foo = 0;
for (let i=10; i; i--) {
    // Bad, function is referencing block scoped variable in the outer scope.
    var a = function() { return foo; };
    a();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-loop-func: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

var a = function() {};

for (var i=10; i; i--) {
    a();
}

for (var i=10; i; i--) {
    var a = function() {}; // OK, no references to variables in the outer scopes.
    a();
}

for (let i=10; i; i--) {
    var a = function() { return i; }; // OK, all references are referring to block scoped variables in the loop.
    a();
}

var foo = 100;
for (let i=10; i; i--) {
    var a = function() { return foo; }; // OK, all references are referring to never modified variables.
    a();
}
//... no modifications of foo after this loop ...

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

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/

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/

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/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

disallow variable redeclaration (no-redeclare)

In JavaScript, it's possible to redeclare the same variable name using var. This can lead to confusion as to where the variable is actually declared and initialized.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at eliminating variables that have multiple declarations in the same scope.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
var a = 10;

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-redeclare: "error"*/

var a = 3;
// ...
a = 10;

Options

This rule takes one optional argument, an object with a boolean property "builtinGlobals". It defaults to false. If set to true, this rule also checks redeclaration of built-in globals, such as Object, Array, Number...

builtinGlobals

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

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/

var Object = 0;

Examples of incorrect code for the { "builtinGlobals": true } option and the browser environment:

/*eslint no-redeclare: ["error", { "builtinGlobals": true }]*/
/*eslint-env browser*/

var top = 0;

The browser environment has many built-in global variables (for example, top). Some of built-in global variables cannot be redeclared. Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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/

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/

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/

Require Guarding for-in (guard-for-in)

Looping over objects with a for in loop will include properties that are inherited through the prototype chain. This behavior can lead to unexpected items in your for loop.

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Note that simply checking foo.hasOwnProperty(key) is likely to cause an error in some cases; see [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md).

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at preventing unexpected behavior that could arise from using a for in loop without filtering the results in the loop. As such, it will warn when for in loops do not filter their results with an if statement.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    doSomething(key);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint guard-for-in: "error"*/

for (key in foo) {
    if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
    if ({}.hasOwnProperty.call(foo, key)) {
        doSomething(key);
    }
}

Related Rules

• [no-prototype-builtins](no-prototype-builtins.md)

Further Reading

• Exploring JavaScript for-in loops
• The pitfalls of using objects as maps in JavaScript Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Enforce Return After Callback (callback-return)

The callback pattern is at the heart of most I/O and event-driven programming in JavaScript.

function doSomething(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        return callback(err);
    }
    callback();
}

To prevent calling the callback multiple times it is important to return anytime the callback is triggered outside of the main function body. Neglecting this technique often leads to issues where you do something more than once. For example, in the case of an HTTP request, you may try to send HTTP headers more than once leading Node.js to throw a Can't render headers after they are sent to the client. error.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at ensuring that callbacks used outside of the main function block are always part-of or immediately preceding a return statement. This rule decides what is a callback based on the name of the function being called.

Options

The rule takes a single option - an array of possible callback names - which may include object methods. The default callback names are callback, cb, next.

Default callback names

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the default ["callback", "cb", "next"] option:

/*eslint callback-return: "error"*/

function foo(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        callback(err);
    }
    callback();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the default ["callback", "cb", "next"] option:

/*eslint callback-return: "error"*/

function foo(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        return callback(err);
    }
    callback();
}

Supplied callback names

Examples of incorrect code for this rule with the option ["done", "send.error", "send.success"]:

/*eslint callback-return: ["error", ["done", "send.error", "send.success"]]*/

function foo(err, done) {
    if (err) {
        done(err);
    }
    done();
}

function bar(err, send) {
    if (err) {
        send.error(err);
    }
    send.success();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule with the option ["done", "send.error", "send.success"]:

/*eslint callback-return: ["error", ["done", "send.error", "send.success"]]*/

function foo(err, done) {
    if (err) {
        return done(err);
    }
    done();
}

function bar(err, send) {
    if (err) {
        return send.error(err);
    }
    send.success();
}

Known Limitations

Because it is difficult to understand the meaning of a program through static analysis, this rule has limitations:

• false negatives when this rule reports correct code, but the program calls the callback more than one time (which is incorrect behavior)
• false positives when this rule reports incorrect code, but the program calls the callback only one time (which is correct behavior)

Passing the callback by reference

The static analysis of this rule does not detect that the program calls the callback if it is an argument of a function (for example, setTimeout).

Example of a false negative when this rule reports correct code:

/*eslint callback-return: "error"*/

function foo(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        setTimeout(callback, 0); // this is bad, but WILL NOT warn
    }
    callback();
}

Triggering the callback within a nested function

The static analysis of this rule does not detect that the program calls the callback from within a nested function or an immediately-invoked function expression (IIFE).

Example of a false negative when this rule reports correct code:

/*eslint callback-return: "error"*/

function foo(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        process.nextTick(function() {
            return callback(); // this is bad, but WILL NOT warn
        });
    }
    callback();
}

If/else statements

The static analysis of this rule does not detect that the program calls the callback only one time in each branch of an if statement.

Example of a false positive when this rule reports incorrect code:

/*eslint callback-return: "error"*/

function foo(err, callback) {
    if (err) {
        callback(err); // this is fine, but WILL warn
    } else {
        callback();    // this is fine, but WILL warn
    }
}

When Not To Use It

There are some cases where you might want to call a callback function more than once. In those cases this rule may lead to incorrect behavior. In those cases you may want to reserve a special name for those callbacks and not include that in the list of callbacks that trigger warnings.

Further Reading

• The Art Of Node: Callbacks
• Nodejitsu: What are the error conventions?

Related Rules

• [handle-callback-err](handle-callback-err.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

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/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

Disallow Use of Alert (no-alert)

JavaScript's alert, confirm, and prompt functions are widely considered to be obtrusive as UI elements and should be replaced by a more appropriate custom UI implementation. Furthermore, alert is often used while debugging code, which should be removed before deployment to production.

alert("here!");

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at catching debugging code that should be removed and popup UI elements that should be replaced with less obtrusive, custom UIs. As such, it will warn when it encounters alert, prompt, and confirm function calls which are not shadowed.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

alert("here!");

confirm("Are you sure?");

prompt("What's your name?", "John Doe");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

customAlert("Something happened!");

customConfirm("Are you sure?");

customPrompt("Who are you?");

function foo() {
    var alert = myCustomLib.customAlert;
    alert();
}

Related Rules

• [no-console](no-console.md)
• [no-debugger](no-debugger.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Disallow Use of Alert (no-alert)

JavaScript's alert, confirm, and prompt functions are widely considered to be obtrusive as UI elements and should be replaced by a more appropriate custom UI implementation. Furthermore, alert is often used while debugging code, which should be removed before deployment to production.

alert("here!");

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at catching debugging code that should be removed and popup UI elements that should be replaced with less obtrusive, custom UIs. As such, it will warn when it encounters alert, prompt, and confirm function calls which are not shadowed.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

alert("here!");

confirm("Are you sure?");

prompt("What's your name?", "John Doe");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

customAlert("Something happened!");

customConfirm("Are you sure?");

customPrompt("Who are you?");

function foo() {
    var alert = myCustomLib.customAlert;
    alert();
}

Related Rules

• [no-console](no-console.md)
• [no-debugger](no-debugger.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

Disallow Use of Alert (no-alert)

JavaScript's alert, confirm, and prompt functions are widely considered to be obtrusive as UI elements and should be replaced by a more appropriate custom UI implementation. Furthermore, alert is often used while debugging code, which should be removed before deployment to production.

alert("here!");

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at catching debugging code that should be removed and popup UI elements that should be replaced with less obtrusive, custom UIs. As such, it will warn when it encounters alert, prompt, and confirm function calls which are not shadowed.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

alert("here!");

confirm("Are you sure?");

prompt("What's your name?", "John Doe");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-alert: "error"*/

customAlert("Something happened!");

customConfirm("Are you sure?");

customPrompt("Who are you?");

function foo() {
    var alert = myCustomLib.customAlert;
    alert();
}

Related Rules

• [no-console](no-console.md)
• [no-debugger](no-debugger.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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/

Disallow Null Comparisons (no-eq-null)

Comparing to null without a type-checking operator (== or !=), can have unintended results as the comparison will evaluate to true when comparing to not just a null, but also an undefined value.

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

Rule Details

The no-eq-null rule aims reduce potential bug and unwanted behavior by ensuring that comparisons to null only match null, and not also undefined. As such it will flag comparisons to null when using == and !=.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo == null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux != null) {
  baz();
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint no-eq-null: "error"*/

if (foo === null) {
  bar();
}

while (qux !== null) {
  baz();
}

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

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 64.

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 64.

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 64.

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 64.

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 62.

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 62.

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 52.

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 52.

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 49.

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 49.

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 48.

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 48.

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 47.

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 47.

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 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

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