Complex method Submission::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! (101.7) Open
def create_request_chain!(request_type_and_multiplier_pairs, source_data_set, multiplexing_assets, &block) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
raise StandardError, 'No request types specified!' if request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.empty?
request_type, multiplier = request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.shift
- 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 create_request_chain!
has a Cognitive Complexity of 32 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def create_request_chain!(request_type_and_multiplier_pairs, source_data_set, multiplexing_assets, &block) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
raise StandardError, 'No request types specified!' if request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.empty?
request_type, multiplier = request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.shift
- 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
Method create_request_chain!
has 43 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def create_request_chain!(request_type_and_multiplier_pairs, source_data_set, multiplexing_assets, &block) # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
raise StandardError, 'No request types specified!' if request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.empty?
request_type, multiplier = request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.shift
Complex method Submission::LinearRequestGraph#associate_built_requests (29.7) Open
def associate_built_requests(assets) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
assets
.map(&:requests)
.flatten
.each do |request|
- 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
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_type_multiplier_pairs has approx 7 statements Open
def build_request_type_multiplier_pairs # 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.)
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_graph! has approx 6 statements Open
def build_request_graph!(multiplexing_assets = nil)
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#associate_built_requests contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
comments.split("\n").each { |comment| request.comments.create!(user: user, description: comment) }
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! contains iterators nested 2 deep Open
comments.split("\n").each { |comment| request.comments.create!(user: user, description: comment) }
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! has approx 28 statements Open
def create_request_chain!(request_type_and_multiplier_pairs, source_data_set, multiplexing_assets, &block) # 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_target_asset_for! is controlled by argument 'source_asset' Open
asset.generate_name(source_asset&.name || asset.try(:human_barcode))
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Control Parameter
is a special case of Control Couple
Example
A simple example would be the "quoted" parameter in the following method:
def write(quoted)
if quoted
write_quoted @value
else
write_unquoted @value
end
end
Fixing those problems is out of the scope of this document but an easy solution could be to remove the "write" method alltogether and to move the calls to "writequoted" / "writeunquoted" in the initial caller of "write".
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! calls 'request_type.for_multiplexing?' 3 times Open
if request_type.for_multiplexing?
multiplexing_assets || Array.new(source_data_set.length, create_target_asset_for!(request_type))
else
source_data_set.map { |source_data| create_target_asset_for!(request_type, source_data.asset) }
end
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! calls 'source_data_set[index]' 2 times Open
source_asset = request_type.no_target_asset? ? source_data_set[index].first : asset
SourceData.new(source_asset, source_data_set[index].qc_metric, 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.
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! calls 'request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.empty?' 2 times Open
raise StandardError, 'No request types specified!' if request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.empty?
request_type, multiplier = request_type_and_multiplier_pairs.shift
# rubocop:todo Metrics/BlockLength
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! calls 'target_assets.uniq' 2 times Open
target_assets.uniq.map { |asset| SourceData.new(asset, criteria, nil) }
else
associate_built_requests(target_assets.uniq.compact)
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! calls 'source_data.asset' 2 times Open
source_data_set.map { |source_data| create_target_asset_for!(request_type, source_data.asset) }
end
yield(target_assets) if block && request_type.for_multiplexing?
# Now we can iterate over the source assets and target assets building the requests between them.
- 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.
Method associate_built_requests
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def associate_built_requests(assets) # rubocop:todo Metrics/AbcSize
assets
.map(&:requests)
.flatten
.each do |request|
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#create_target_asset_for! doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def create_target_asset_for!(request_type, source_asset = nil)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#create_request_chain! performs a nil-check Open
if multiplexing_assets.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)
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_graph! has the variable name 'a' Open
) { |a| mx_assets_tmp = a }
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_type_multiplier_pairs has the variable name 'k' Open
.new { |h, k| h[k] = 1 }
.tap do |multipliers|
requested_multipliers = request_options.try(:[], :multiplier) || {}
requested_multipliers.each { |k, v| multipliers[k.to_s] = v.to_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.
Submission::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_type_multiplier_pairs has the variable name 'h' Open
.new { |h, k| h[k] = 1 }
- 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::LinearRequestGraph#build_request_type_multiplier_pairs has the variable name 'v' Open
requested_multipliers.each { |k, v| multipliers[k.to_s] = v.to_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.
TODO found Open
# TODO: AssetLink is supposed to disappear at some point in the future because it makes no real sense
- Exclude checks