natydev/fitbark

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.

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.)

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

An Uncommunicative Variable Name is a variable name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

An Uncommunicative Module Name is a module name that doesn't communicate its intent well enough.

Poor names make it hard for the reader to build a mental picture of what's going on in the code. They can also be mis-interpreted; and they hurt the flow of reading, because the reader must slow down to interpret the names.

This cop checks for redundant access modifiers, including those with no code, those which are repeated, and leading public modifiers in a class or module body. Conditionally-defined methods are considered as always being defined, and thus access modifiers guarding such methods are not redundant.

Example:

class Foo
  public # this is redundant (default access is public)

  def method
  end

  private # this is not redundant (a method is defined)
  def method2
  end

  private # this is redundant (no following methods are defined)
end

Example:

class Foo
  # The following is not redundant (conditionally defined methods are
  # considered as always defining a method)
  private

  if condition?
    def method
    end
  end

  protected # this is not redundant (method is defined)

  define_method(:method2) do
  end

  protected # this is redundant (repeated from previous modifier)

  [1,2,3].each do |i|
    define_method("foo#{i}") do
    end
  end

  # The following is redundant (methods defined on the class'
  # singleton class are not affected by the public modifier)
  public

  def self.method3
  end
end

Example:

# Lint/UselessAccessModifier:
#   ContextCreatingMethods:
#     - concerning
require 'active_support/concern'
class Foo
  concerning :Bar do
    def some_public_method
    end

    private

    def some_private_method
    end
  end

  # this is not redundant because `concerning` created its own context
  private

  def some_other_private_method
  end
end

Example:

# Lint/UselessAccessModifier:
#   MethodCreatingMethods:
#     - delegate
require 'active_support/core_ext/module/delegation'
class Foo
  # this is not redundant because `delegate` creates methods
  private

  delegate :method_a, to: :method_b
end

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok