Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#next_named_show has approx 13 statements Open
def next_named_show(m, show_keyword, opts)
- 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::Schedule#next_show has approx 8 statements Open
def next_show(m, opts)
- 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::Schedule#command_schedule has approx 6 statements Open
def command_schedule(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::Schedule#command_next contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
parser.on('-z', '--tz ZONE', 'ZONE required.') do |zone|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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)
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#next_named_show refers to 'm' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
m.reply "Oh, yes. Little Bobby Tables, we call him."
else
m.reply "Cannot find a show for #{show_keyword}"
end
- 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::Schedule#command_next has approx 14 statements Open
def command_next(m, opts = '')
- 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::Schedule#next_show refers to 'response' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
response << "#{event.summary} is live right now! "
end
event = next_event
- 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::Schedule#next_named_show calls 'show_keyword.strip' 2 times Open
if show_keyword.strip.empty?
command_next(m)
return
end
- 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::Schedule#next_show calls 'event.summary' 2 times Open
response << "#{event.summary} is live right now! "
end
event = next_event
- 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::Schedule#command_next calls 'm.user' 3 times Open
m.user.send ioe.message
rescue OptionParser::MissingArgument => mae
m.user.send mae.message
rescue TZInfo::InvalidTimezoneIdentifier
m.user.send 'That is not a valid timezone. For a list of valid time zones, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tz_database_time_zones'
- 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::Schedule#command_schedule calls 'm.user' 3 times Open
m.user.send "No shows in the next week"
return
end
m.user.send "#{@events.length} upcoming show#{@events.length > 1 ? "s" : ""} in the next week"
- 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::Schedule has no descriptive comment Open
class Schedule
- 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::Schedule#command_schedule calls '@events.length' 2 times Open
m.user.send "#{@events.length} upcoming show#{@events.length > 1 ? "s" : ""} in the next week"
- 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.
Method next_named_show
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def next_named_show(m, show_keyword, opts)
if show_keyword.strip.empty?
command_next(m)
return
end
- Read upRead up
Cognitive Complexity
Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.
A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:
- Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
- Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
- Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"
Further reading
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#get_timezone_from_name doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def get_timezone_from_name(tz_name)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#help_schedule doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_schedule
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#in_how_long doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def in_how_long(event, tz)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#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::Schedule#help_next doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def help_next
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule takes parameters ['m', 'opts'] to 3 methods Open
def command_next(m, opts = '')
parsed_options = {
:tz => get_timezone_from_name('UTC')
}
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
In general, a Data Clump
occurs when the same two or three items frequently appear together in classes and parameter lists, or when a group of instance variable names start or end with similar substrings.
The recurrence of the items often means there is duplicate code spread around to handle them. There may be an abstraction missing from the code, making the system harder to understand.
Example
Given
class Dummy
def x(y1,y2); end
def y(y1,y2); end
def z(y1,y2); end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[2, 3, 4]:Dummy takes parameters [y1, y2] to 3 methods (DataClump)
A possible way to fix this problem (quoting from Martin Fowler):
The first step is to replace data clumps with objects and use the objects whenever you see them. An immediate benefit is that you'll shrink some parameter lists. The interesting stuff happens as you begin to look for behavior to move into the new objects.
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#next_event performs a nil-check Open
if show.nil?
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A NilCheck
is a type check. Failures of NilCheck
violate the "tell, don't ask" principle.
Additionally, type checks often mask bigger problems in your source code like not using OOP and / or polymorphism when you should.
Example
Given
class Klass
def nil_checker(argument)
if argument.nil?
puts "argument isn't nil!"
end
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[3]:Klass#nil_checker performs a nil-check. (NilCheck)
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#on_connect has unused parameter 'm' Open
def on_connect(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Unused Parameter
refers to methods with parameters that are unused in scope of the method.
Having unused parameters in a method is code smell because leaving dead code in a method can never improve the method and it makes the code confusing to read.
Example
Given:
class Klass
def unused_parameters(x,y,z)
puts x,y # but not z
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
[2]:Klass#unused_parameters has unused parameter 'z' (UnusedParameters)
Cinch::Plugins::Schedule#command_schedule has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_schedule(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::Schedule#next_named_show has the parameter name 'm' Open
def next_named_show(m, show_keyword, opts)
- 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::Schedule#command_next has the parameter name 'm' Open
def command_next(m, opts = '')
- 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::Schedule#next_show has the parameter name 'm' Open
def next_show(m, opts)
- 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::Schedule#on_connect has the parameter name 'm' Open
def on_connect(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.
Unused method argument - m
. If it's necessary, use _
or _m
as an argument name to indicate that it won't be used. You can also write as on_connect(*)
if you want the method to accept any arguments but don't care about them. Open
def on_connect(m)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks for unused method arguments.
Example:
# bad
def some_method(used, unused, _unused_but_allowed)
puts used
end
Example:
# good
def some_method(used, _unused, _unused_but_allowed)
puts used
end
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 /next\s*$/i, :method => :command_next # !next
- 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 /schedule/i, :method => :command_schedule # !schedule
- 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 /next\s+(.+)/i, :method => :command_next # !next <show>
- 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
opts = opts.split /\s+/
- 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)