Showing 47 of 50 total issues
Assignment Branch Condition size for shorten_parameters is too high. [25.42/15] Open
def shorten_parameters(params, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric
Assignment Branch Condition size for shorten_link is too high. [20.54/15] Open
def shorten_link(link, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric
Method has too many lines. [14/10] Open
def shorten_parameters(params, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.
Method has too many lines. [11/10] Open
def shorten_link(link, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.
Cyclomatic complexity for shorten_parameters is too high. [7/6] Open
def shorten_parameters(params, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.
An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.
Block has too many lines. [32/25] Open
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.name = 'firebase_dynamic_link'
spec.version = FirebaseDynamicLink::VERSION
spec.authors = ['M Saiqul Haq']
spec.email = ['saiqulhaq@gmail.com']
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.
Method shorten_parameters
has a Cognitive Complexity of 9 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def shorten_parameters(params, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- 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
FirebaseDynamicLink::Client#shorten_link has approx 8 statements Open
def shorten_link(link, options = {})
- 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.)
FirebaseDynamicLink::LinkRenderer#raise_error refers to 'response' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
reason = response.reason_phrase.to_s if response.respond_to?(:reason_phrase)
message = begin
body = JSON.parse(response.body)
body['error']['message']
rescue JSON::ParserError, NoMethodError
- 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.
FirebaseDynamicLink::LinkRenderer#render_success refers to 'body' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
return raise_error(response) if body.key?('error')
{
link: body['shortLink'],
preview_link: body['previewLink'],
- 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.
FirebaseDynamicLink::Client#shorten_parameters has approx 10 statements Open
def shorten_parameters(params, options = {})
- 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.)
Method shorten_link
has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def shorten_link(link, options = {})
connection.timeout = options[:timeout] if options.key?(:timeout)
connection.open_timeout = options[:open_timeout] if options.key?(:open_timeout)
suffix_option = options[:suffix_option] if options.key?(:suffix_option)
- 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
FirebaseDynamicLink::LinkRenderer#raise_error manually dispatches method call Open
reason = response.reason_phrase.to_s if response.respond_to?(:reason_phrase)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
FirebaseDynamicLink has no descriptive comment Open
module FirebaseDynamicLink
- 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
FirebaseDynamicLink::Connection#initialize calls 'FirebaseDynamicLink.config' 2 times Open
client.options.timeout = FirebaseDynamicLink.config.timeout
client.options.open_timeout = FirebaseDynamicLink.config.open_timeout
- 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.
FirebaseDynamicLink::LinkRenderer#raise_error calls 'response.body' 2 times Open
body = JSON.parse(response.body)
body['error']['message']
rescue JSON::ParserError, NoMethodError
response.body
- 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.
FirebaseDynamicLink::Connection#initialize calls 'client.options' 2 times Open
client.options.timeout = FirebaseDynamicLink.config.timeout
client.options.open_timeout = FirebaseDynamicLink.config.open_timeout
- 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.
FirebaseDynamicLink::LinkRenderer#render calls 'response.status' 2 times Open
if response.status.between?(200, 299)
render_success(response)
elsif response.status == 429
- 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.
Block has too many lines. [27/25] Open
guard :rspec, cmd: 'bundle exec rspec' do
require 'guard/rspec/dsl'
dsl = Guard::RSpec::Dsl.new(self)
# Feel free to open issues for suggestions and improvements
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.
FirebaseDynamicLink::Client#shorten_link has the variable name 'e' Open
rescue Faraday::ConnectionFailed, Faraday::TimeoutError => e
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
An Uncommunicative Variable Name
is a variable 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.