Sign upLogin

rueian/rueidis

View on GitHub
Star

Showing 635 of 649 total issues

Function readB has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
Open

func readB(i *bufio.Reader) (string, error) {
    length, err := readI(i)
    if err != nil {
        return "", err
    }
Severity: Major
Found in resp.go - About 35 mins to fix

    Method countingBloomFilter.ExistsMulti has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
    Open

    func (f *countingBloomFilter) ExistsMulti(ctx context.Context, keys []string) ([]bool, error) {
    if len(keys) == 0 {
        return nil, nil
    }
    Severity: Major
    Found in rueidisprob/countingbloomfilter.go - About 35 mins to fix

      Method sentinelClient.listWatch has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
      Open

      func (c *sentinelClient) listWatch(cc conn) (target string, sentinels []string, err error) {
    ctx := context.Background()
    sentinelsCMD := c.cmd.SentinelSentinels().Master(c.mOpt.Sentinel.MasterSet).Build()
    getMasterCMD := c.cmd.SentinelGetMasterAddrByName().Master(c.mOpt.Sentinel.MasterSet).Build()
    replicasCMD := c.cmd.SentinelReplicas().Master(c.mOpt.Sentinel.MasterSet).Build()
      Severity: Major
      Found in sentinel.go - About 35 mins to fix

        Function readNextMessage has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
        Open

        func readNextMessage(i *bufio.Reader) (m RedisMessage, err error) {
    var attrs *RedisMessage
    var typ byte
    for {
        if typ, err = i.ReadByte(); err != nil {
        Severity: Major
        Found in resp.go - About 35 mins to fix

          Function NewCountingBloomFilter has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
          Open

          func NewCountingBloomFilter(
    client rueidis.Client,
    name string,
    expectedNumberOfItems uint,
    falsePositiveRate float64,
          Severity: Major
          Found in rueidisprob/countingbloomfilter.go - About 35 mins to fix

            Method countingBloomFilter.ItemMinCountMulti has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
            Open

            func (f *countingBloomFilter) ItemMinCountMulti(ctx context.Context, keys []string) ([]uint, error) {
    if len(keys) == 0 {
        return nil, nil
    }
            Severity: Major
            Found in rueidisprob/countingbloomfilter.go - About 35 mins to fix

              Function readI has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
              Open

              func readI(i *bufio.Reader) (v int64, err error) {
    bs, err := i.ReadSlice('\n')
    if err != nil {
        return 0, err
    }
              Severity: Major
              Found in resp.go - About 35 mins to fix

                Method pipe.Receive has 5 return statements (exceeds 4 allowed).
                Open

                func (p *pipe) Receive(ctx context.Context, subscribe Completed, fn func(message PubSubMessage)) error {
    if p.nsubs == nil || p.psubs == nil || p.ssubs == nil {
        return p.Error()
    }
                Severity: Major
                Found in pipe.go - About 35 mins to fix

                  Similar blocks of code found in 4 locations. Consider refactoring.
                  Open

                  func (mr *ClientMockRecorder) Close() *gomock.Call {
    mr.mock.ctrl.T.Helper()
    return mr.mock.ctrl.RecordCallWithMethodType(mr.mock, "Close", reflect.TypeOf((*Client)(nil).Close))
}
                  Severity: Major
                  Found in mock/client.go and 3 other locations - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 85..88
                  mock/client.go on lines 212..215
                  mock/client.go on lines 270..273

                  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 102.

                  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 4 locations. Consider refactoring.
                  Open

                  func (mr *DedicatedClientMockRecorder) Close() *gomock.Call {
    mr.mock.ctrl.T.Helper()
    return mr.mock.ctrl.RecordCallWithMethodType(mr.mock, "Close", reflect.TypeOf((*DedicatedClient)(nil).Close))
}
                  Severity: Major
                  Found in mock/client.go and 3 other locations - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 70..73
                  mock/client.go on lines 85..88
                  mock/client.go on lines 212..215

                  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 102.

                  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 4 locations. Consider refactoring.
                  Open

                  func (mr *ClientMockRecorder) Nodes() *gomock.Call {
    mr.mock.ctrl.T.Helper()
    return mr.mock.ctrl.RecordCallWithMethodType(mr.mock, "Nodes", reflect.TypeOf((*Client)(nil).Nodes))
}
                  Severity: Major
                  Found in mock/client.go and 3 other locations - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 70..73
                  mock/client.go on lines 85..88
                  mock/client.go on lines 270..273

                  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 102.

                  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 4 locations. Consider refactoring.
                  Open

                  func (mr *ClientMockRecorder) Dedicate() *gomock.Call {
    mr.mock.ctrl.T.Helper()
    return mr.mock.ctrl.RecordCallWithMethodType(mr.mock, "Dedicate", reflect.TypeOf((*Client)(nil).Dedicate))
}
                  Severity: Major
                  Found in mock/client.go and 3 other locations - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 70..73
                  mock/client.go on lines 212..215
                  mock/client.go on lines 270..273

                  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 102.

                  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

                  func NewClient(ctrl *gomock.Controller, options ...ClientOption) *Client {
    mock := &Client{ctrl: ctrl, slot: cmds.NoSlot}
    mock.recorder = &ClientMockRecorder{mock}
    for _, opt := range options {
        opt(mock)
                  Severity: Minor
                  Found in mock/client.go and 1 other location - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 244..251

                  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 100.

                  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

                  func NewDedicatedClient(ctrl *gomock.Controller, options ...ClientOption) *DedicatedClient {
    mock := &DedicatedClient{ctrl: ctrl, slot: cmds.NoSlot}
    mock.recorder = &DedicatedClientMockRecorder{mock}
    for _, opt := range options {
        opt(mock)
                  Severity: Minor
                  Found in mock/client.go and 1 other location - About 30 mins to fix
                  mock/client.go on lines 44..51

                  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 100.

                  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

                  Method RedisMessage.AsIntMap has a Cognitive Complexity of 21 (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
                  Open

                  func (m *RedisMessage) AsIntMap() (map[string]int64, error) {
    if err := m.Error(); err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    if (m.IsMap() || m.IsArray()) && len(m.values)%2 == 0 {
                  Severity: Minor
                  Found in message.go - 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

                  Severity
                  Category
                  Status
                  Source
                  Language