sanger/sequencescape

View on GitHub
app/models/submission.rb

Summary

Maintainability
A
3 hrs
Test Coverage
A
91%

Complex method Submission#next_requests_via_submission (58.5)
Open

  def next_requests_via_submission(request) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
    raise "Request #{request.id} is not part of submission #{id}" unless request.submission_id == id

    # Pick out the siblings of the request, so we can work out where it is in the list, and all of
    # the requests in the subsequent request type, so that we can tie them up.  We order by ID
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/submission.rb by flog

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

Class Submission has 26 methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

class Submission < ApplicationRecord # rubocop:todo Metrics/ClassLength
  include Uuid::Uuidable
  extend Submission::StateMachine
  include Submission::DelayedJobBehaviour
  include ModelExtensions::Submission
Severity: Minor
Found in app/models/submission.rb - About 3 hrs to fix

    Submission#each_submission_warning refers to 'store' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

            store[:samples].concat(samples)
            store[:submissions].concat(submissions)
          end
        end
        yield store[:samples].uniq, store[:submissions].uniq unless store[:samples].empty?
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission has approx 13 statements
    Open

      def next_requests_via_submission(request) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.)

    Submission#each_submission_warning has approx 6 statements
    Open

      def each_submission_warning
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.)

    Submission#multiplier_cache contains iterators nested 2 deep
    Open

            multipliers = orders.reduce(Set.new) { |set, order| set << order.multiplier_for(request_type_id) }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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)

    Submission#study_names contains iterators nested 2 deep
    Open

          .map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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)

    Submission#process_submission! has approx 6 statements
    Open

      def process_submission!
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.)

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission refers to 'request' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

        raise "Request #{request.id} is not part of submission #{id}" unless request.submission_id == id
    
        # Pick out the siblings of the request, so we can work out where it is in the list, and all of
        # the requests in the subsequent request type, so that we can tie them up.  We order by ID
        # here so that the earliest requests, those created by the submission build, are always first;
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#study_names refers to 'o' more than self (maybe move it to another class?)
    Open

          .map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission has at least 25 methods
    Open

    class Submission < ApplicationRecord # rubocop:todo Metrics/ClassLength
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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)

    Submission#each_submission_warning contains iterators nested 2 deep
    Open

          order.duplicates_within(1.month) do |samples, _orders, submissions|
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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)

    Complex method Submission#study_names (26.0)
    Open

      def study_names
        # TODO: Should probably be re-factored, although we'll only fall back to the intensive code in the case of cross
        # study re-requests
        orders
          .map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by flog

    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

    Method next_requests_via_submission has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

      def next_requests_via_submission(request) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
        raise "Request #{request.id} is not part of submission #{id}" unless request.submission_id == id
    
        # Pick out the siblings of the request, so we can work out where it is in the list, and all of
        # the requests in the subsequent request type, so that we can tie them up.  We order by ID
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb - About 45 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

    Submission#each_submission_warning calls 'store[:submissions]' 2 times
    Open

            store[:submissions].concat(submissions)
          end
        end
        yield store[:samples].uniq, store[:submissions].uniq unless store[:samples].empty?
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'request.request_type' 3 times
    Open

          return next_possible_requests if request.request_type.pooling_method.nil?
    
          # If we get here we've got custom pooling behaviour defined.
          index = request.request_type.pool_index_for_request(request)
          number_to_return = next_possible_requests.count / request.request_type.pool_count
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'request.next_request_type_id' 3 times
    Open

        all_requests = request_cache_for(request.request_type_id, request.next_request_type_id)
        sibling_requests = all_requests[request.request_type_id]
        next_possible_requests = all_requests[request.next_request_type_id]
    
        if request.for_multiplexing?
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'npr.order_id == request.order_id' 2 times
    Open

          index = sibling_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }.index(request)
          next_possible_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }[
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'request.order_id' 2 times
    Open

          index = sibling_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }.index(request)
          next_possible_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }[
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'npr.order_id' 4 times
    Open

          index = sibling_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }.index(request)
          next_possible_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }[
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#each_submission_warning calls 'store[:samples]' 3 times
    Open

            store[:samples].concat(samples)
            store[:submissions].concat(submissions)
          end
        end
        yield store[:samples].uniq, store[:submissions].uniq unless store[:samples].empty?
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'request.request_type_id' 2 times
    Open

        all_requests = request_cache_for(request.request_type_id, request.next_request_type_id)
        sibling_requests = all_requests[request.request_type_id]
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission calls 'npr.order_id.nil?' 2 times
    Open

          index = sibling_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }.index(request)
          next_possible_requests.select { |npr| npr.order_id.nil? || (npr.order_id == request.order_id) }[
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#next_requests_via_submission performs a nil-check
    Open

          return next_possible_requests if request.request_type.pooling_method.nil?
    
          # If we get here we've got custom pooling behaviour defined.
          index = request.request_type.pool_index_for_request(request)
          number_to_return = next_possible_requests.count / request.request_type.pool_count
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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)

    Submission has missing safe method 'process_submission!'
    Open

      def process_submission!
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#study_names has the variable name 'o'
    Open

          .map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    Submission#study_names has the variable name 'a'
    Open

          .map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by reek

    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.

    TODO found
    Open

        # TODO: Should probably be re-factored, although we'll only fall back to the intensive code in the case of cross
    Severity: Minor
    Found in app/models/submission.rb by fixme

    There are no issues that match your filters.

    Category
    Status