Method parse_mapping_rules
has a Cognitive Complexity of 9 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def parse_mapping_rules(mapping) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
attribute_to_json, json_to_attribute = [], []
StringIO
.new(mapping)
.each_line do |line|
- 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
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#json_field_for refers to 'attribute' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
return attribute_to_json_field[attribute.to_s] if attribute_to_json_field.key?(attribute.to_s)
# We have to assume that this could be an association that is being exposed, in which case we'll
# need to determine the I/O class that deals with it and hand off the error handling to it.
association, *association_parts = attribute.to_s.split('.')
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#self.extended has approx 6 statements Open
def self.extended(base)
- 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.)
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#json_field_for has approx 7 statements Open
def json_field_for(attribute) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- 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.)
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules refers to 'match' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
attribute_to_json.push([match[1], match[3]]) if (match[2] =~ /<?=>/)
json_to_attribute.push([match[3], /<=>?/.match?(match[2]) ? match[1] : nil])
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules has approx 8 statements Open
def parse_mapping_rules(mapping) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- 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.)
Complex method Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules (25.1) Open
def parse_mapping_rules(mapping) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
attribute_to_json, json_to_attribute = [], []
StringIO
.new(mapping)
.each_line do |line|
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.
You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool
Complex method Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#json_field_for (24.0) Open
def json_field_for(attribute) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
return attribute_to_json_field[attribute.to_s] if attribute_to_json_field.key?(attribute.to_s)
# We have to assume that this could be an association that is being exposed, in which case we'll
# need to determine the I/O class that deals with it and hand off the error handling to it.
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Flog calculates the ABC score for methods. The ABC score is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions.
You can read more about ABC metrics or the flog tool
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules calls 'match[1]' 2 times Open
attribute_to_json.push([match[1], match[3]]) if (match[2] =~ /<?=>/)
json_to_attribute.push([match[3], /<=>?/.match?(match[2]) ? match[1] : nil])
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules calls 'match[2]' 2 times Open
attribute_to_json.push([match[1], match[3]]) if (match[2] =~ /<?=>/)
json_to_attribute.push([match[3], /<=>?/.match?(match[2]) ? match[1] : nil])
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour has no descriptive comment Open
module Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour
- 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
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#json_field_for calls 'attribute.to_s' 5 times Open
return attribute_to_json_field[attribute.to_s] if attribute_to_json_field.key?(attribute.to_s)
# We have to assume that this could be an association that is being exposed, in which case we'll
# need to determine the I/O class that deals with it and hand off the error handling to it.
association, *association_parts = attribute.to_s.split('.')
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#parse_mapping_rules calls 'match[3]' 2 times Open
attribute_to_json.push([match[1], match[3]]) if (match[2] =~ /<?=>/)
json_to_attribute.push([match[3], /<=>?/.match?(match[2]) ? match[1] : nil])
- 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.
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#json_field_for performs a nil-check Open
return attribute.to_s if reflection.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)
Core::Io::Base::JsonFormattingBehaviour#object_json has unused parameter 'args' Open
def object_json(*args); end
- 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)
TODO found Open
# TODO: 'association' here should really be garnered from the appropriate endpoint
- Exclude checks