Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick has approx 7 statements Open
def command_btcetick(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.)
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_litetick has approx 8 statements Open
def command_litetick(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.)
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick refers to 'btcedata' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
btcedata["avg"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["avg"]
btcedata["high"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["high"]
btcedata["low"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["low"]
btcedata['vol'] = "%.2f" % btcedata['vol']
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick calls 'btcedata["high"]' 2 times Open
btcedata["high"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["high"]
btcedata["low"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["low"]
btcedata['vol'] = "%.2f" % btcedata['vol']
m.reply "#{Format(:blue,'BTC-E:')} #{Format(:bold,'Average:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<average>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Last:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<last>s')} #{Format(:bold,'High:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<high>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Low:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<low>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Volume:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<vol>s')}" % {
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick calls 'btcedata["low"]' 2 times Open
btcedata["low"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["low"]
btcedata['vol'] = "%.2f" % btcedata['vol']
m.reply "#{Format(:blue,'BTC-E:')} #{Format(:bold,'Average:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<average>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Last:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<last>s')} #{Format(:bold,'High:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<high>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Low:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<low>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Volume:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<vol>s')}" % {
average: btcedata['avg'].to_s.gsub(/(\d)(?=\d{3}+(?:\.|$))(\d{3}\..*)?/,'\1,\2'),
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick calls 'btcedata["avg"]' 2 times Open
btcedata["avg"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["avg"]
btcedata["high"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["high"]
btcedata["low"] = "%.2f" % btcedata["low"]
btcedata['vol'] = "%.2f" % btcedata['vol']
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick has no descriptive comment Open
class Bittick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick calls 'btcedata['vol']' 2 times Open
btcedata['vol'] = "%.2f" % btcedata['vol']
m.reply "#{Format(:blue,'BTC-E:')} #{Format(:bold,'Average:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<average>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Last:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<last>s')} #{Format(:bold,'High:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<high>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Low:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<low>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Volume:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<vol>s')}" % {
average: btcedata['avg'].to_s.gsub(/(\d)(?=\d{3}+(?:\.|$))(\d{3}\..*)?/,'\1,\2'),
last: btcedata['last'].to_s.gsub(/(\d)(?=\d{3}+(?:\.|$))(\d{3}\..*)?/,'\1,\2'),
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Duplication occurs when two fragments of code look nearly identical, or when two fragments of code have nearly identical effects at some conceptual level.
Reek implements a check for Duplicate Method Call.
Example
Here's a very much simplified and contrived example. The following method will report a warning:
def double_thing()
@other.thing + @other.thing
end
One quick approach to silence Reek would be to refactor the code thus:
def double_thing()
thing = @other.thing
thing + thing
end
A slightly different approach would be to replace all calls of double_thing
by calls to @other.double_thing
:
class Other
def double_thing()
thing + thing
end
end
The approach you take will depend on balancing other factors in your code.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#help_dogetick doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_dogetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#help_bitavg doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_bitavg
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#help_litetick doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_litetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#help_btcetick doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_btcetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#help doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_bitavg has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_bitavg(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_dogetick has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_dogetick(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_litetick has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_litetick(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Cinch::Plugins::Bittick#command_btcetick has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_btcetick(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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.
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def command_bitavg(m)
bitavgjson = open('https://api.bitcoinaverage.com/ticker/global/USD/').read
bitavgdata = JSON::parse(bitavgjson)
m.reply "#{Format(:blue,'BitcoinAverage:')} #{Format(:bold,'24h Average:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<average>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Last:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<last>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Ask:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<ask>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Bid:')} #{Format(:orange,'$%<bid>s')} #{Format(:bold,'Volume:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<vol>s BTC')}" % {
- 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 93.
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
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def command_dogetick(m)
dogejson = open('https://data.bter.com/api/1/ticker/doge_btc').read
dogedata = JSON::parse(dogejson)
m.reply "#{Format(:blue,'BTer:')} #{Format(:bold,'24h Average:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<average>s BTC')} #{Format(:bold,'Last:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<last>s BTC')} #{Format(:bold,'Ask:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<ask>s BTC')} #{Format(:bold,'Bid:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<bid>s BTC')} #{Format(:bold,'Volume:')} #{Format(:orange,'%<vol>s DOGE')}" % {
- 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 93.
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
Ambiguous regexp literal. Parenthesize the method arguments if it's surely a regexp literal, or add a whitespace to the right of the /
if it should be a division. Open
match /litetick/i, :method => :command_litetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for ambiguous regexp literals in the first argument of a method invocation without parentheses.
Example:
# bad
# This is interpreted as a method invocation with a regexp literal,
# but it could possibly be `/` method invocations.
# (i.e. `do_something./(pattern)./(i)`)
do_something /pattern/i
Example:
# good
# With parentheses, there's no ambiguity.
do_something(/pattern/i)
Ambiguous regexp literal. Parenthesize the method arguments if it's surely a regexp literal, or add a whitespace to the right of the /
if it should be a division. Open
match /bitavg/i, :method => :command_bitavg
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for ambiguous regexp literals in the first argument of a method invocation without parentheses.
Example:
# bad
# This is interpreted as a method invocation with a regexp literal,
# but it could possibly be `/` method invocations.
# (i.e. `do_something./(pattern)./(i)`)
do_something /pattern/i
Example:
# good
# With parentheses, there's no ambiguity.
do_something(/pattern/i)
Ambiguous regexp literal. Parenthesize the method arguments if it's surely a regexp literal, or add a whitespace to the right of the /
if it should be a division. Open
match /btcetick/i, :method => :command_btcetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for ambiguous regexp literals in the first argument of a method invocation without parentheses.
Example:
# bad
# This is interpreted as a method invocation with a regexp literal,
# but it could possibly be `/` method invocations.
# (i.e. `do_something./(pattern)./(i)`)
do_something /pattern/i
Example:
# good
# With parentheses, there's no ambiguity.
do_something(/pattern/i)
Ambiguous regexp literal. Parenthesize the method arguments if it's surely a regexp literal, or add a whitespace to the right of the /
if it should be a division. Open
match /bittick/i, :method => :command_btcetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for ambiguous regexp literals in the first argument of a method invocation without parentheses.
Example:
# bad
# This is interpreted as a method invocation with a regexp literal,
# but it could possibly be `/` method invocations.
# (i.e. `do_something./(pattern)./(i)`)
do_something /pattern/i
Example:
# good
# With parentheses, there's no ambiguity.
do_something(/pattern/i)
Ambiguous regexp literal. Parenthesize the method arguments if it's surely a regexp literal, or add a whitespace to the right of the /
if it should be a division. Open
match /dogetick/i, :method => :command_dogetick
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for ambiguous regexp literals in the first argument of a method invocation without parentheses.
Example:
# bad
# This is interpreted as a method invocation with a regexp literal,
# but it could possibly be `/` method invocations.
# (i.e. `do_something./(pattern)./(i)`)
do_something /pattern/i
Example:
# good
# With parentheses, there's no ambiguity.
do_something(/pattern/i)