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
- 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
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
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?
- 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.
Submission#next_requests_via_submission has approx 13 statements Open
def next_requests_via_submission(request) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
- 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.)
Submission#each_submission_warning has approx 6 statements Open
def each_submission_warning
- 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.)
Submission#multiplier_cache contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
multipliers = orders.reduce(Set.new) { |set, order| set << order.multiplier_for(request_type_id) }
- 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)
Submission#study_names contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
.map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
- 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)
Submission#process_submission! has approx 6 statements Open
def process_submission!
- 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.)
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;
- 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.
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) } }
- 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.
Submission has at least 25 methods Open
class Submission < ApplicationRecord # rubocop:todo Metrics/ClassLength
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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|
- 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)
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) } }
- 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
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
- 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
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?
- 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.
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
- 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.
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?
- 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.
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) }[
- 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.
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) }[
- 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.
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) }[
- 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.
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?
- 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.
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]
- 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.
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) }[
- 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.
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
- 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)
Submission has missing safe method 'process_submission!' Open
def process_submission!
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
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) } }
- 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.
Submission#study_names has the variable name 'a' Open
.map { |o| o.study.try(:name) || o.assets.map { |a| a.studies.pluck(:name) } }
- 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.
TODO found Open
# TODO: Should probably be re-factored, although we'll only fall back to the intensive code in the case of cross
- Exclude checks