File optparse.rb
has 1142 lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Gem::OptionParser
Gem::OptionParser::Version = "0.4.0"
# :stopdoc:
NoArgument = [NO_ARGUMENT = :NONE, nil].freeze
Method parse_in_order
has a Cognitive Complexity of 129 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def parse_in_order(argv = default_argv, setter = nil, &nonopt) # :nodoc:
opt, arg, val, rest = nil
nonopt ||= proc {|a| throw :terminate, a}
argv.unshift(arg) if arg = catch(:terminate) {
while arg = argv.shift
- 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
Method make_switch
has a Cognitive Complexity of 105 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def make_switch(opts, block = nil)
short, long, nolong, style, pattern, conv, not_pattern, not_conv, not_style = [], [], []
ldesc, sdesc, desc, arg = [], [], []
default_style = Switch::NoArgument
default_pattern = nil
- 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
Class OptionParser
has 67 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
class Gem::OptionParser
Gem::OptionParser::Version = "0.4.0"
# :stopdoc:
NoArgument = [NO_ARGUMENT = :NONE, nil].freeze
Method make_switch
has 123 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def make_switch(opts, block = nil)
short, long, nolong, style, pattern, conv, not_pattern, not_conv, not_style = [], [], []
ldesc, sdesc, desc, arg = [], [], []
default_style = Switch::NoArgument
default_pattern = nil
Method summarize
has a Cognitive Complexity of 26 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def summarize(sdone = {}, ldone = {}, width = 1, max = width - 1, indent = "")
sopts, lopts = [], [], nil
@short.each {|s| sdone.fetch(s) {sopts << s}; sdone[s] = true} if @short
@long.each {|s| ldone.fetch(s) {lopts << s}; ldone[s] = true} if @long
return if sopts.empty? and lopts.empty? # completely hidden
- 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
Method candidate
has a Cognitive Complexity of 25 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def candidate(word)
list = []
case word
when '-'
long = short = true
- 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
Method parse_in_order
has 73 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def parse_in_order(argv = default_argv, setter = nil, &nonopt) # :nodoc:
opt, arg, val, rest = nil
nonopt ||= proc {|a| throw :terminate, a}
argv.unshift(arg) if arg = catch(:terminate) {
while arg = argv.shift
Method complete
has a Cognitive Complexity of 19 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def complete(key, icase = false, pat = nil)
candidates = candidate(key, icase, pat, &method(:each)).sort_by {|k, v, kn| kn.size}
if candidates.size == 1
canon, sw, * = candidates[0]
elsif candidates.size > 1
- 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
Method load
has a Cognitive Complexity of 18 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def load(filename = nil, into: nil)
unless filename
basename = File.basename($0, '.*')
return true if load(File.expand_path(basename, '~/.options'), into: into) rescue nil
basename << ".options"
- 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
Method getopts
has a Cognitive Complexity of 17 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def getopts(*args, symbolize_names: false)
argv = Array === args.first ? args.shift : default_argv
single_options, *long_options = *args
result = {}
- 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
Method pretty_print
has a Cognitive Complexity of 16 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def pretty_print(q) # :nodoc:
q.object_group(self) do
first = true
if @stack.size > 2
@stack.each_with_index do |s, i|
- 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
Method candidate
has a Cognitive Complexity of 12 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def self.candidate(key, icase = false, pat = nil, &block)
pat ||= Completion.regexp(key, icase)
candidates = []
block.call do |k, *v|
(if Regexp === k
- 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
Method parse_arg
has a Cognitive Complexity of 11 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def parse_arg(arg) # :nodoc:
pattern or return nil, [arg]
unless m = pattern.match(arg)
yield(InvalidArgument, arg)
return arg, []
- 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
Method summarize
has 29 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def summarize(sdone = {}, ldone = {}, width = 1, max = width - 1, indent = "")
sopts, lopts = [], [], nil
@short.each {|s| sdone.fetch(s) {sopts << s}; sdone[s] = true} if @short
@long.each {|s| ldone.fetch(s) {lopts << s}; ldone[s] = true} if @long
return if sopts.empty? and lopts.empty? # completely hidden
Method candidate
has 27 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def candidate(word)
list = []
case word
when '-'
long = short = true
Method initialize
has 8 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def initialize(pattern = nil, conv = nil,
short = nil, long = nil, arg = nil,
desc = ([] if short or long), block = nil, &_block)
Avoid deeply nested control flow statements. Open
rescue InvalidOption
raise if require_exact
# if no short options match, try completion with long
# options.
sw, = complete(:long, opt)
Avoid deeply nested control flow statements. Open
throw :terminate, arg unless raise_unknown
Avoid deeply nested control flow statements. Open
throw :terminate, arg unless raise_unknown
Avoid deeply nested control flow statements. Open
throw :terminate, arg unless raise_unknown
Method complete
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def complete(id, opt, icase = false, *pat, &block)
Method update
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def update(sw, sopts, lopts, nsw = nil, nlopts = nil) # :nodoc:
Method summarize
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def summarize(sdone = {}, ldone = {}, width = 1, max = width - 1, indent = "")
Method summarize
has 5 arguments (exceeds 4 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def summarize(to = [], width = @summary_width, max = width - 1, indent = @summary_indent, &blk)
Method compsys
has a Cognitive Complexity of 7 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def compsys(sdone, ldone) # :nodoc:
sopts, lopts = [], []
@short.each {|s| sdone.fetch(s) {sopts << s}; sdone[s] = true} if @short
@long.each {|s| ldone.fetch(s) {lopts << s}; ldone[s] = true} if @long
return if sopts.empty? and lopts.empty? # completely hidden
- 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
Avoid too many return
statements within this method. Open
return arg[s.length..-1], m
Method add_banner
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def add_banner(to) # :nodoc:
unless @short or @long
s = desc.join
to << " [" + s + "]..." unless s.empty?
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
Method parse
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def parse(arg, argv, &error)
if !(val = arg) and (argv.empty? or /\A-./ =~ (val = argv[0]))
return nil, block, nil
end
opt = (val = parse_arg(val, &error))[1]
- 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
Method summarize
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def summarize(*args, &block)
sum = []
list.reverse_each do |opt|
if opt.respond_to?(:summarize) # perhaps Gem::OptionParser::Switch
s = []
- 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
XXX found Open
XXX
- Exclude checks
XXX found Open
COMPSYS_HEADER = <<'XXX' # :nodoc:
- Exclude checks
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def parse(*argv, into: nil)
argv = argv[0].dup if argv.size == 1 and Array === argv[0]
parse!(argv, into: into)
- 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 25.
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 permute(*argv, into: nil)
argv = argv[0].dup if argv.size == 1 and Array === argv[0]
permute!(argv, into: into)
- 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 25.
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