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 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/

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/

disallow the use of console (no-console)

In JavaScript that is designed to be executed in the browser, it's considered a best practice to avoid using methods on console. Such messages are considered to be for debugging purposes and therefore not suitable to ship to the client. In general, calls using console should be stripped before being pushed to production.

console.log("Made it here.");
console.error("That shouldn't have happened.");

Rule Details

This rule disallows calls to methods of the console object.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

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

console.log("Log a debug level message.");
console.warn("Log a warn level message.");
console.error("Log an error level message.");

Examples of correct code for this rule:

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

// custom console
Console.log("Hello world!");

Options

This rule has an object option for exceptions:

• "allow" has an array of strings which are allowed methods of the console object

Examples of additional correct code for this rule with a sample { "allow": ["warn", "error"] } option:

/*eslint no-console: ["error", { allow: ["warn", "error"] }] */

console.warn("Log a warn level message.");
console.error("Log an error level message.");

When Not To Use It

If you're using Node.js, however, console is used to output information to the user and so is not strictly used for debugging purposes. If you are developing for Node.js then you most likely do not want this rule enabled.

Related Rules

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

Suggest using const (prefer-const)

If a variable is never reassigned, using the const declaration is better.

const declaration tells readers, "this variable is never reassigned," reducing cognitive load and improving maintainability.

Rule Details

This rule is aimed at flagging variables that are declared using let keyword, but never reassigned after the initial assignment.

Examples of incorrect code for this rule:

/*eslint prefer-const: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

// it's initialized and never reassigned.
let a = 3;
console.log(a);

let a;
a = 0;
console.log(a);

// `i` is redefined (not reassigned) on each loop step.
for (let i in [1, 2, 3]) {
    console.log(i);
}

// `a` is redefined (not reassigned) on each loop step.
for (let a of [1, 2, 3]) {
    console.log(a);
}

Examples of correct code for this rule:

/*eslint prefer-const: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

// using const.
const a = 0;

// it's never initialized.
let a;
console.log(a);

// it's reassigned after initialized.
let a;
a = 0;
a = 1;
console.log(a);

// it's initialized in a different block from the declaration.
let a;
if (true) {
    a = 0;
}
console.log(a);

// it's initialized at a place that we cannot write a variable declaration.
let a;
if (true) a = 0;
console.log(a);

// `i` gets a new binding each iteration
for (const i in [1, 2, 3]) {
  console.log(i);
}

// `a` gets a new binding each iteration
for (const a of [1, 2, 3]) {
  console.log(a);
}

// `end` is never reassigned, but we cannot separate the declarations without modifying the scope.
for (let i = 0, end = 10; i < end; ++i) {
    console.log(a);
}

// suggest to use `no-var` rule.
var b = 3;
console.log(b);

Options

{
    "prefer-const": ["error", {
        "destructuring": "any",
        "ignoreReadBeforeAssign": false
    }]
}

destructuring

The kind of the way to address variables in destructuring. There are 2 values:

• "any" (default) - If any variables in destructuring should be const, this rule warns for those variables.
• "all" - If all variables in destructuring should be const, this rule warns the variables. Otherwise, ignores them.

Examples of incorrect code for the default {"destructuring": "any"} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

let {a, b} = obj;    /*error 'b' is never reassigned, use 'const' instead.*/
a = a + 1;

Examples of correct code for the default {"destructuring": "any"} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: "error"*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

// using const.
const {a: a0, b} = obj;
const a = a0 + 1;

// all variables are reassigned.
let {a, b} = obj;
a = a + 1;
b = b + 1;

Examples of incorrect code for the {"destructuring": "all"} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: ["error", {"destructuring": "all"}]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

// all of `a` and `b` should be const, so those are warned.
let {a, b} = obj;    /*error 'a' is never reassigned, use 'const' instead.
                             'b' is never reassigned, use 'const' instead.*/

Examples of correct code for the {"destructuring": "all"} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: ["error", {"destructuring": "all"}]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

// 'b' is never reassigned, but all of `a` and `b` should not be const, so those are ignored.
let {a, b} = obj;
a = a + 1;

ignoreReadBeforeAssign

This is an option to avoid conflicting with no-use-before-define rule (without "nofunc" option). If true is specified, this rule will ignore variables that are read between the declaration and the first assignment. Default is false.

Examples of correct code for the {"ignoreReadBeforeAssign": true} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: ["error", {"ignoreReadBeforeAssign": true}]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

let timer;
function initialize() {
    if (foo()) {
        clearInterval(timer);
    }
}
timer = setInterval(initialize, 100);

Examples of correct code for the default {"ignoreReadBeforeAssign": false} option:

/*eslint prefer-const: ["error", {"ignoreReadBeforeAssign": false}]*/
/*eslint-env es6*/

const timer = setInterval(initialize, 100);
function initialize() {
    if (foo()) {
        clearInterval(timer);
    }
}

When Not To Use It

If you don't want to be notified about variables that are never reassigned after initial assignment, you can safely disable this rule.

Related Rules

• [no-var](no-var.md)
• [no-use-before-define](no-use-before-define.md) Source: http://eslint.org/docs/rules/