Too Many Constants is a special case of LargeClass.

Example

Given this configuration

TooManyConstants:
  max_constants: 3

and this code:

class TooManyConstants
  CONST_1 = :dummy
  CONST_2 = :dummy
  CONST_3 = :dummy
  CONST_4 = :dummy
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warnings:
  [1]:TooManyConstants has 4 constants (TooManyConstants)

Too Many Methods is a special case of LargeClass.

Example

Given this configuration

TooManyMethods:
  max_methods: 3

and this code:

class TooManyMethods
  def one; end
  def two; end
  def three; end
  def four; end
end

Reek would emit the following warning:

test.rb -- 1 warning:
  [1]:TooManyMethods has at least 4 methods (TooManyMethods)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.

A candidate method for the Missing Safe Method smell are methods whose names end with an exclamation mark.

An exclamation mark in method names means (the explanation below is taken from here ):

The ! in method names that end with ! means, “This method is dangerous”—or, more precisely, this method is the “dangerous” version of an otherwise equivalent method, with the same name minus the !. “Danger” is relative; the ! doesn’t mean anything at all unless the method name it’s in corresponds to a similar but bang-less method name. So, for example, gsub! is the dangerous version of gsub. exit! is the dangerous version of exit. flatten! is the dangerous version of flatten. And so forth.

Such a method is called Missing Safe Method if and only if her non-bang version does not exist and this method is reported as a smell.

Example

Given

class C
  def foo; end
  def foo!; end
  def bar!; end
end

Reek would report bar! as Missing Safe Method smell but not foo!.

Reek reports this smell only in a class context, not in a module context in order to allow perfectly legit code like this:

class Parent
  def foo; end
end

module Dangerous
  def foo!; end
end

class Son < Parent
  include Dangerous
end

class Daughter < Parent
end

In this example, Reek would not report the Missing Safe Method smell for the method foo of the Dangerous module.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 38.

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