Function render
has 48 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
LogsPanel.prototype.render = function() {
function encode(r) {
return r.replace(/[\x26\x0A\<>'"]/g, function(r) {return '&#' + r.charCodeAt(0) + ';';});
}
var self = this;
Function render
has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
LogsPanel.prototype.render = function() {
function encode(r) {
return r.replace(/[\x26\x0A\<>'"]/g, function(r) {return '&#' + r.charCodeAt(0) + ';';});
}
var self = this;
- Read upRead up
Cognitive Complexity
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.
A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:
- Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
- Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
- Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"
Further reading
Expected '===' and instead saw '=='. Open
if (e.which == 13) {
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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 treatsnull
literals. Possible values:-
always
(default) - Always use === or !==. -
never
- Never use === or !== withnull
. -
ignore
- Do not apply this rule tonull
.
-
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/
Unexpected control character(s) in regular expression: \x0A, <>'"]/. Open
return r.replace(/[\x26\x0A\<>'"]/g, function(r) {return '&#' + r.charCodeAt(0) + ';';});
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
disallow control characters in regular expressions (no-control-regex)
Control characters are special, invisible characters in the ASCII range 0-31. These characters are rarely used in JavaScript strings so a regular expression containing these characters is most likely a mistake.
Rule Details
This rule disallows control characters in regular expressions.
Examples of incorrect code for this rule:
/*eslint no-control-regex: "error"*/
var pattern1 = /\x1f/;
var pattern2 = new RegExp("\x1f");
Examples of correct code for this rule:
/*eslint no-control-regex: "error"*/
var pattern1 = /\x20/;
var pattern2 = new RegExp("\x20");
When Not To Use It
If you need to use control character pattern matching, then you should turn this rule off.
Related Rules
- [no-div-regex](no-div-regex.md)
- [no-regex-spaces](no-regex-spaces.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/
TODO found Open
// TODO: move here
- Exclude checks
Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
function encode(r) {
return r.replace(/[\x26\x0A\<>'"]/g, function(r) {return '&#' + r.charCodeAt(0) + ';';});
}
- 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 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