Complex method Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings (38.1) Open
def source_mappings(data_object) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
source_mappings = ''
each_mapping(data_object) do |mapping, destination_plate_barcode, plate_details|
source_plate_barcode = (mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s
source_well_position = mapping['src_well'][1]
- 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
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings has approx 10 statements Open
def source_mappings(data_object) # 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.)
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping has approx 10 statements Open
def each_mapping(data_object) # 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.)
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
mapping_by_well = Hash.new { |h, i| h[i] = [] }
plate_details['mapping'].each do |mapping|
destination_position =
Map::Coordinate.description_to_vertical_plate_position(mapping['dst_well'], plate_details['plate_size'])
mapping_by_well[destination_position] << mapping
- 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)
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping contains iterators nested 3 deep Open
mappings.each { |mapping| yield(mapping, dest_plate_barcode, plate_details) }
- 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)
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings refers to 'mapping' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
source_plate_barcode = (mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s
source_well_position = mapping['src_well'][1]
source_plate_type = data_object['source'][(mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s]['name']
destination_well_position = mapping['dst_well']
destination_plate_type = plate_details['name']
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls 'mapping['volume']' 2 times Open
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
destination_plate_barcode,
destination_well_position,
destination_plate_type,
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls '(mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s' 2 times Open
source_plate_barcode = (mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s
source_well_position = mapping['src_well'][1]
source_plate_type = data_object['source'][(mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s]['name']
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls 'hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume'])' 2 times Open
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
destination_plate_barcode,
destination_well_position,
destination_plate_type,
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls 'mapping['src_well'][0]' 2 times Open
source_plate_barcode = (mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s
source_well_position = mapping['src_well'][1]
source_plate_type = data_object['source'][(mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s]['name']
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls 'mapping['src_well']' 3 times Open
source_plate_barcode = (mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s
source_well_position = mapping['src_well'][1]
source_plate_type = data_object['source'][(mapping['src_well'][0]).to_s]['name']
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#source_mappings calls 'hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s' 2 times Open
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
destination_plate_barcode,
destination_well_position,
destination_plate_type,
hamilton_precision_value(mapping['volume']).to_s,
- 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.
Complex method Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping (22.0) Open
def each_mapping(data_object) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
data_object['destination'].each do |dest_plate_barcode, plate_details|
mapping_by_well = Hash.new { |h, i| h[i] = [] }
plate_details['mapping'].each do |mapping|
destination_position =
- 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
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#column_headers doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def column_headers
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def each_mapping(data_object) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#mapping performs a nil-check Open
raise ArgumentError, 'Data object not present for Hamilton mapping' if data_object.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)
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping has the variable name 'i' Open
mapping_by_well = Hash.new { |h, i| h[i] = [] }
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping has the variable name 'a' Open
.sort_by { |a| a[0] }
- 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.
Robot::Generator::Behaviours::HamiltonDefault#each_mapping has the variable name 'h' Open
mapping_by_well = Hash.new { |h, i| h[i] = [] }
- 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.