This cop checks if the length a class exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

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

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.

You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool

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.

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 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.)

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.

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 Nested Iterator occurs when a block contains another block.

Example

Given

class Duck
  class << self
    def duck_names
      %i!tick trick track!.each do |surname|
        %i!duck!.each do |last_name|
          puts "full name is #{surname} #{last_name}"
        end
      end
    end
  end
end

Reek would report the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [5]:Duck#duck_names contains iterators nested 2 deep (NestedIterators)

Too Many Methods is a special case of LargeClass.

Example

Given this configuration

TooManyMethods:
  max_methods: 3

and this code:

class TooManyMethods
  def one; end
  def two; end
  def three; end
  def four; end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [1]:TooManyMethods has at least 4 methods (TooManyMethods)

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.)

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.

Classes should not assume that instance variables are set or present outside of the current class definition.

Good:

class Foo
  def initialize
    @bar = :foo
  end

  def foo?
    @bar == :foo
  end
end

Good as well:

class Foo
  def foo?
    bar == :foo
  end

  def bar
    @bar ||= :foo
  end
end

Bad:

class Foo
  def go_foo!
    @bar = :foo
  end

  def foo?
    @bar == :foo
  end
end

Example

Running Reek on:

class Dummy
  def test
    @ivar
  end
end

would report:

[1]:InstanceVariableAssumption: Dummy assumes too much for instance variable @ivar

Note that this example would trigger this smell warning as well:

class Parent
  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    @omg
  end
end

The way to address the smell warning is that you should create an attr_reader to use @omg in the subclass and not access @omg directly like this:

class Parent
  attr_reader :omg

  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    omg
  end
end

Directly accessing instance variables is considered a smell because it breaks encapsulation and makes it harder to reason about code.

If you don't want to expose those methods as public API just make them private like this:

class Parent
  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end

  private
  attr_reader :omg
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    omg
  end
end

Current Support in Reek

An instance variable must:

• be set in the constructor
• or be accessed through a method with lazy initialization / memoization.

If not, Instance Variable Assumption will be reported.

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)

Classes should not assume that instance variables are set or present outside of the current class definition.

Good:

class Foo
  def initialize
    @bar = :foo
  end

  def foo?
    @bar == :foo
  end
end

Good as well:

class Foo
  def foo?
    bar == :foo
  end

  def bar
    @bar ||= :foo
  end
end

Bad:

class Foo
  def go_foo!
    @bar = :foo
  end

  def foo?
    @bar == :foo
  end
end

Example

Running Reek on:

class Dummy
  def test
    @ivar
  end
end

would report:

[1]:InstanceVariableAssumption: Dummy assumes too much for instance variable @ivar

Note that this example would trigger this smell warning as well:

class Parent
  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    @omg
  end
end

The way to address the smell warning is that you should create an attr_reader to use @omg in the subclass and not access @omg directly like this:

class Parent
  attr_reader :omg

  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    omg
  end
end

Directly accessing instance variables is considered a smell because it breaks encapsulation and makes it harder to reason about code.

If you don't want to expose those methods as public API just make them private like this:

class Parent
  def initialize(omg)
    @omg = omg
  end

  private
  attr_reader :omg
end

class Child < Parent
  def foo
    omg
  end
end

Current Support in Reek

An instance variable must:

• be set in the constructor
• or be accessed through a method with lazy initialization / memoization.

If not, Instance Variable Assumption will be reported.

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

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

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 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 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 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 Parameter Name is a parameter 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 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 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.

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 31.

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 31.

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

This cop enforces the use of either #alias or #alias_method depending on configuration. It also flags uses of alias :symbol rather than alias bareword.

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefer_alias (default)

# bad
alias_method :bar, :foo
alias :bar :foo

# good
alias bar foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: preferaliasmethod

# bad
alias :bar :foo
alias bar foo

# good
alias_method :bar, :foo

This cop enforces the use of either #alias or #alias_method depending on configuration. It also flags uses of alias :symbol rather than alias bareword.

Example: EnforcedStyle: prefer_alias (default)

# bad
alias_method :bar, :foo
alias :bar :foo

# good
alias bar foo

Example: EnforcedStyle: preferaliasmethod

# bad
alias :bar :foo
alias bar foo

# good
alias_method :bar, :foo

This cop checks the indentation of the first parameter in a method call. Parameters after the first one are checked by Style/AlignParameters, not by this cop.

Example:

# bad
some_method(
first_param,
second_param)

# good
some_method(
  first_param,
second_param)

This cop checks the indentation of the first parameter in a method call. Parameters after the first one are checked by Style/AlignParameters, not by this cop.

Example:

# bad
some_method(
first_param,
second_param)

# good
some_method(
  first_param,
second_param)

This cops checks the indentation of hanging closing parentheses in method calls, method definitions, and grouped expressions. A hanging closing parenthesis means ) preceded by a line break.

Example:

# good: when x is on its own line, indent this way
func(
  x,
  y
)

# good: when x follows opening parenthesis, align parentheses
a = b * (x +
         y
        )

# bad
def func(
  x,
  y
  )
end

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

This cop checks for missing top-level documentation of classes and modules. Classes with no body are exempt from the check and so are namespace modules - modules that have nothing in their bodies except classes, other modules, or constant definitions.

The documentation requirement is annulled if the class or module has a "#:nodoc:" comment next to it. Likewise, "#:nodoc: all" does the same for all its children.

Example:

# bad
class Person
  # ...
end

# good
# Description/Explanation of Person class
class Person
  # ...
end

This cops checks the indentation of hanging closing parentheses in method calls, method definitions, and grouped expressions. A hanging closing parenthesis means ) preceded by a line break.

Example:

# good: when x is on its own line, indent this way
func(
  x,
  y
)

# good: when x follows opening parenthesis, align parentheses
a = b * (x +
         y
        )

# bad
def func(
  x,
  y
  )
end

This cop checks for redundant parentheses.

Example:

# bad
(x) if ((y.z).nil?)

# good
x if y.z.nil?

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

This cop checks for redundant parentheses.

Example:

# bad
(x) if ((y.z).nil?)

# good
x if y.z.nil?

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

Checks if uses of quotes match the configured preference.

Example: EnforcedStyle: single_quotes (default)

# bad
"No special symbols"
"No string interpolation"
"Just text"

# good
'No special symbols'
'No string interpolation'
'Just text'
"Wait! What's #{this}!"

Example: EnforcedStyle: double_quotes

# bad
'Just some text'
'No special chars or interpolation'

# good
"Just some text"
"No special chars or interpolation"
"Every string in #{project} uses double_quotes"

This cop checks for strings that are just an interpolated expression.

Example:

# bad
"#{@var}"

# good
@var.to_s

# good if @var is already a String
@var

This cop makes sure that predicates are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def is_even?(value)
end

# good
def even?(value)
end

# bad
def has_value?
end

# good
def value?
end

This cop checks for redundant parentheses.

Example:

# bad
(x) if ((y.z).nil?)

# good
x if y.z.nil?

This cop (by default) checks for uses of methods Hash#haskey? and Hash#hasvalue? where it enforces Hash#key? and Hash#value? It is configurable to enforce the inverse, using verbose method names also.

Example: EnforcedStyle: short (default)

# bad Hash#haskey? Hash#hasvalue?

# good Hash#key? Hash#value?

Example: EnforcedStyle: verbose

# bad Hash#key? Hash#value?

# good Hash#haskey? Hash#hasvalue?

This cop checks for redundant parentheses.

Example:

# bad
(x) if ((y.z).nil?)

# good
x if y.z.nil?