Showing 145 of 145 total issues
Fitbark::Constants has 7 constants Open
module Constants
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Too Many Constants
is a special case of LargeClass
.
Example
Given this configuration
TooManyConstants:
max_constants: 3
and this code:
class TooManyConstants
CONST_1 = :dummy
CONST_2 = :dummy
CONST_3 = :dummy
CONST_4 = :dummy
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warnings:
[1]:TooManyConstants has 4 constants (TooManyConstants)
Fitbark::Handler::V2::Base#check_errors refers to 'conn' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
unless conn.success?
raise(Fitbark::Errors::ConnectionError
.new(message: "#{conn.reason_phrase} #{conn.body}",
code: conn.status))
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Feature Envy occurs when a code fragment references another object more often than it references itself, or when several clients do the same series of manipulations on a particular type of object.
Feature Envy reduces the code's ability to communicate intent: code that "belongs" on one class but which is located in another can be hard to find, and may upset the "System of Names" in the host class.
Feature Envy also affects the design's flexibility: A code fragment that is in the wrong class creates couplings that may not be natural within the application's domain, and creates a loss of cohesion in the unwilling host class.
Feature Envy often arises because it must manipulate other objects (usually its arguments) to get them into a useful form, and one force preventing them (the arguments) doing this themselves is that the common knowledge lives outside the arguments, or the arguments are of too basic a type to justify extending that type. Therefore there must be something which 'knows' about the contents or purposes of the arguments. That thing would have to be more than just a basic type, because the basic types are either containers which don't know about their contents, or they are single objects which can't capture their relationship with their fellows of the same type. So, this thing with the extra knowledge should be reified into a class, and the utility method will most likely belong there.
Example
Running Reek on:
class Warehouse
def sale_price(item)
(item.price - item.rebate) * @vat
end
end
would report:
Warehouse#total_price refers to item more than self (FeatureEnvy)
since this:
(item.price - item.rebate)
belongs to the Item class, not the Warehouse.
Fitbark::Client#respond_to? has boolean parameter 'include_private' Open
def respond_to?(method, include_private = false)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Boolean Parameter
is a special case of Control Couple
, where a method parameter is defaulted to true or false. A Boolean Parameter effectively permits a method's caller to decide which execution path to take. This is a case of bad cohesion. You're creating a dependency between methods that is not really necessary, thus increasing coupling.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def hit_the_switch(switch = true)
if switch
puts 'Hitting the switch'
# do other things...
else
puts 'Not hitting the switch'
# do other things...
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 3 warnings:
[1]:Dummy#hit_the_switch has boolean parameter 'switch' (BooleanParameter)
[2]:Dummy#hit_the_switch is controlled by argument switch (ControlParameter)
Note that both smells are reported, Boolean Parameter
and Control Parameter
.
Getting rid of the smell
This is highly dependent on your exact architecture, but looking at the example above what you could do is:
- Move everything in the
if
branch into a separate method - Move everything in the
else
branch into a separate method - Get rid of the
hit_the_switch
method alltogether - Make the decision what method to call in the initial caller of
hit_the_switch
Fitbark::Handler::V2::ActivitySeries#build_params has 4 parameters Open
def build_params(slug, from, to, res)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Long Parameter List
occurs when a method has a lot of parameters.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def long_list(foo,bar,baz,fling,flung)
puts foo,bar,baz,fling,flung
end
end
Reek would report the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2]:Dummy#long_list has 5 parameters (LongParameterList)
A common solution to this problem would be the introduction of parameter objects.
Fitbark::Handler::V2::Base#connection has approx 6 statements Open
def connection(verb: :get, fragment:, params: {})
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A method with Too Many Statements
is any method that has a large number of lines.
Too Many Statements
warns about any method that has more than 5 statements. Reek's smell detector for Too Many Statements
counts +1 for every simple statement in a method and +1 for every statement within a control structure (if
, else
, case
, when
, for
, while
, until
, begin
, rescue
) but it doesn't count the control structure itself.
So the following method would score +6 in Reek's statement-counting algorithm:
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-/ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil # +1
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1] # +2
val = conv_arg(*val) # +3
if opt and !arg
argv.shift # +4
else
val[0] = nil # +5
end
val # +6
end
(You might argue that the two assigments within the first @if@ should count as statements, and that perhaps the nested assignment should count as +2.)
Fitbark::Auth has at least 8 instance variables Open
class Auth
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Too Many Instance Variables
is a special case of LargeClass
.
Example
Given this configuration
TooManyInstanceVariables:
max_instance_variables: 3
and this code:
class TooManyInstanceVariables
def initialize
@arg_1 = :dummy
@arg_2 = :dummy
@arg_3 = :dummy
@arg_4 = :dummy
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 5 warnings:
[1]:TooManyInstanceVariables has at least 4 instance variables (TooManyInstanceVariables)
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
module Handler
module V2
# = \#own_dogs
# Fitbark::Handler::V2::OwnDogs defines method *own_dogs*
# inside Client object, it retrieve all dogs owned by logged user
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 40.
We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.
The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.
If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.
See codeclimate-duplication
's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml
.
Refactorings
- Extract Method
- Extract Class
- Form Template Method
- Introduce Null Object
- Pull Up Method
- Pull Up Field
- Substitute Algorithm
Further Reading
- Don't Repeat Yourself on the C2 Wiki
- Duplicated Code on SourceMaking
- Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. Duplicated Code, p76
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
module Handler
module V2
# = \#friend_dogs
# Fitbark::Handler::V2::FriendDogs defines method *friend_dogs*
# inside Client object, it retrieve all dogs having friendship
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 40.
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
Fitbark::Errors::ConnectionError has no descriptive comment Open
class ConnectionError < BaseError; end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark::Client#method_missing manually dispatches method call Open
if respond_to?(method)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
Fitbark::Errors::FormatError has no descriptive comment Open
class FormatError < BaseError; end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark has no descriptive comment Open
module Fitbark
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark::Handler::V2::Base has initialize method Open
module Base
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A module is usually a mixin, so when an #initialize
method is present it is
hard to tell initialization order and parameters so having #initialize
in a module is usually a bad idea.
Example
The Foo
module below contains a method initialize
. Although class B
inherits from A
, the inclusion of Foo
stops A#initialize
from being called.
class A
def initialize(a)
@a = a
end
end
module Foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
end
class B < A
include Foo
def initialize(b)
super('bar')
@b = b
end
end
A simple solution is to rename Foo#initialize
and call that method by name:
module Foo
def setup_foo_module(foo)
@foo = foo
end
end
class B < A
include Foo
def initialize(b)
super 'bar'
setup_foo_module('foo')
@b = b
end
end
Fitbark::Data::Shared::ClassMethods has no descriptive comment Open
module ClassMethods
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark::Handler::V2::SetDailyGoal#validate_input calls 'opts[:set_on]' 2 times Open
unless opts[:set_on].instance_of?(Date)
raise Fitbark::Errors::FormatError
.new(message: "Wrong or missing date for param 'set_on'")
end
if opts[:set_on] < Date.today
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Fitbark::Auth#read_token manually dispatches method call Open
(token_data.respond_to?(:token) && token_data.token) || val
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
Fitbark::Errors::DataError has no descriptive comment Open
class DataError < BaseError; end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark::Errors::TokenNotProvidedError has no descriptive comment Open
class TokenNotProvidedError < BaseError
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Fitbark::Errors::FetchTokenError has no descriptive comment Open
class FetchTokenError < BaseError; end
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Classes and modules are the units of reuse and release. It is therefore considered good practice to annotate every class and module with a brief comment outlining its responsibilities.
Example
Given
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[1]:Dummy has no descriptive comment (IrresponsibleModule)
Fixing this is simple - just an explaining comment:
# The Dummy class is responsible for ...
class Dummy
# Do things...
end
Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
module Handler
module V2
# = \#user_picture
# Fitbark::Handler::V2::UserPicture define method *user_picture*
# inside Client object
- Read upRead up
Duplicated Code
Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:
Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.
When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).
Tuning
This issue has a mass of 34.
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