Sign upLogin

riboseinc/ruby-vobject

View on GitHub
Star
lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb

Summary

Maintainability
F
4 days
Test Coverage

Method address has a Cognitive Complexity of 56 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

      def address
        text = C::TEXT3
        component = seq(text << ",".r, lazy { component }) do |(a, b)|
          [unescape(a), b].flatten
        end | text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 1 day to fix

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

File typegrammars.rb has 384 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

require "rsec"
require "set"
require "uri"
require "date"
include Rsec::Helpers
Severity: Minor
Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 5 hrs to fix

    Method fivepartname has a Cognitive Complexity of 30 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

          def fivepartname
        text = C::TEXT3
        component = seq(text << ",".r, lazy { component }) do |(a, b)|
          [unescape(a), b].flatten
        end | text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 4 hrs to fix

    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

    Method typematch has a Cognitive Complexity of 29 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

          def typematch(strict, key, params, _component, value, ctx)
        errors = []
        params[:VALUE] = params[:VALUE].downcase if params && params[:VALUE]
        ctx1 = Rsec::ParseContext.new value, "source"
        case key
    Severity: Minor
    Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 4 hrs to fix

    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

    Method typematch has 80 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

          def typematch(strict, key, params, _component, value, ctx)
        errors = []
        params[:VALUE] = params[:VALUE].downcase if params && params[:VALUE]
        ctx1 = Rsec::ParseContext.new value, "source"
        case key
    Severity: Major
    Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 3 hrs to fix

      Class Typegrammars has 26 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
      Open

        class Typegrammars
    class << self
      # property value types, each defining their own parser

      def binary
      Severity: Minor
      Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 3 hrs to fix

        Method address has 59 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
        Open

              def address
        text = C::TEXT3
        component = seq(text << ",".r, lazy { component }) do |(a, b)|
          [unescape(a), b].flatten
        end | text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
        Severity: Major
        Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

          Method fivepartname has 33 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
          Open

                def fivepartname
        text = C::TEXT3
        component = seq(text << ",".r, lazy { component }) do |(a, b)|
          [unescape(a), b].flatten
        end | text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
          Severity: Minor
          Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 1 hr to fix

            Method date_time has 26 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
            Open

                  def date_time
        utc_offset = seq(C::SIGN, /[0-9]{2}/.r << /:/.r._?, /[0-9]{2}/.r) do |(s, h, m)|
          { sign: s, hour: h, min: m }
        end
        zone = utc_offset.map { |u| u } |
            Severity: Minor
            Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 1 hr to fix

              Method typematch has 6 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring.
              Open

                    def typematch(strict, key, params, _component, value, ctx)
              Severity: Minor
              Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 45 mins to fix

                Method date_or_date_time has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def date_or_date_time
        utc_offset = seq(C::SIGN, /[0-9]{2}/.r << /:/.r._?, /[0-9]{2}/.r) do |(s, h, m)|
          { sign: s, hour: h, min: m }
        end
        zone = utc_offset.map { |u| u } |
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 25 mins to fix

                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

                Method date_time has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def date_time
        utc_offset = seq(C::SIGN, /[0-9]{2}/.r << /:/.r._?, /[0-9]{2}/.r) do |(s, h, m)|
          { sign: s, hour: h, min: m }
        end
        zone = utc_offset.map { |u| u } |
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 25 mins to fix

                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

                Method time_t has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def time_t
        utc_offset = seq(C::SIGN, /[0-9]{2}/.r << /:/.r._?, /[0-9]{2}/.r) do |(s, h, m)|
          { sign: s, hour: h, min: m }
        end
        zone = utc_offset.map { |u| u } |
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb - About 25 mins to fix

                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

                Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def geovalue
        float = prim(:double)
        geovalue = seq(float << ";".r, float) do |(a, b)|
          if a <= 180.0 && a >= -180.0 && b <= 180 && b > -180
            PropertyValue::Geovalue.new(lat: a, long: b)
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 55 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcalendar/typegrammars.rb on lines 152..161

                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 44.

                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

                Further Reading

                Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def org
        text = C::TEXT3
        org1 =
          seq(text << ";".r, lazy { org1 }) { |(a, b)| [unescape(a), b].flatten } |
          text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 45 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb on lines 94..100

                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 41.

                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

                Further Reading

                Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def textlist
        text = C::TEXT3
        textlist1 =
          seq(text << ",".r, lazy { textlist1 }) { |(a, b)| [unescape(a), b].flatten } |
          text.map { |t| [unescape(t)] }
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 45 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb on lines 103..109

                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 41.

                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

                Further Reading

                Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                      def binary
        binary = seq(/[a-zA-Z0-9+\/]*/.r, /={0,2}/.r) do |(b, q)|
          if (b.length + q.length) % 4 == 0
            PropertyValue::Binary.new(b + q)
          else
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 30 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcalendar/typegrammars.rb on lines 186..194

                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 32.

                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

                Further Reading

                Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                        when :BDAY
          ret = if params && params[:VALUE] == "date-time"
                  date_time._parse ctx1
                elsif params && params[:VALUE] == "date"
                  date_t._parse ctx1
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 25 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcard/v4_0/typegrammars.rb on lines 500..507

                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 29.

                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

                Further Reading

                Identical blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
                Open

                        address1 = seq(component << ";".r, component << ";".r, component << ";".r, component << ";".r,
                       component << ";".r, component << ";".r, component) do |(a, b, c, d, e, f, g)|
                Severity: Minor
                Found in lib/vobject/vcard/v3_0/typegrammars.rb and 1 other location - About 15 mins to fix
                lib/vobject/vcard/v4_0/typegrammars.rb on lines 333..336

                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 26.

                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

                Further Reading

                There are no issues that match your filters.

                Category
                Status