Method duplicate_barcodes
has a Cognitive Complexity of 27 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def duplicate_barcodes # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
unique_bcs = {}
unique_plates = {}
- 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 non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates
has a Cognitive Complexity of 13 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
# Initialize empty retention_instructions hash to store retention instructions
upload
- 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
Complex method SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#duplicate_barcodes (34.7) Open
def duplicate_barcodes # rubocop:todo Metrics/CyclomaticComplexity
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
unique_bcs = {}
unique_plates = {}
- 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
Complex method SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates (29.7) Open
def non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
# Initialize empty retention_instructions hash to store retention instructions
upload
- 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
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#duplicate_barcodes refers to 'row' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
next if row.columns.blank? || row.data.blank?
plate_barcode = row.value('sanger_plate_id')
sample_id = row.value('sanger_sample_id')
- 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.
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#check_row_retention_value has approx 7 statements Open
def check_row_retention_value(row, plate_barcode, retention_instructions)
- 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.)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates has approx 9 statements Open
def non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates
- 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.)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates refers to 'row' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
row.columns.blank? || row.data.blank? || row.columns.extract(['retention_instruction']).count.zero?
plate_barcode = row.value('sanger_plate_id')
sample_id = row.value('sanger_sample_id')
- 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.
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#check_row_retention_value refers to 'retention_instructions' more than self (maybe move it to another class?) Open
if retention_instructions.key?(plate_barcode)
if retention_instructions[plate_barcode] != retention_instruction_key
return "Plate (#{plate_barcode}) cannot have different retention instruction values."
end
else
- 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.
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#duplicate_barcodes has approx 17 statements Open
def duplicate_barcodes # 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.)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#duplicate_barcodes manually dispatches method call Open
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates manually dispatches method call Open
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
Reek reports a Manual Dispatch smell if it finds source code that manually checks whether an object responds to a method before that method is called. Manual dispatch is a type of Simulated Polymorphism which leads to code that is harder to reason about, debug, and refactor.
Example
class MyManualDispatcher
attr_reader :foo
def initialize(foo)
@foo = foo
end
def call
foo.bar if foo.respond_to?(:bar)
end
end
Reek would emit the following warning:
test.rb -- 1 warning:
[9]: MyManualDispatcher manually dispatches method call (ManualDispatch)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates calls 'row.columns' 2 times Open
row.columns.blank? || row.data.blank? || row.columns.extract(['retention_instruction']).count.zero?
- 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 check_row_retention_value
has a Cognitive Complexity of 6 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring. Open
def check_row_retention_value(row, plate_barcode, retention_instructions)
# if present the column is mandatory
row_retention_value = row.value('retention_instruction')
return 'Value cannot be blank.' if row_retention_value.nil?
- 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
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#check_for_retention_instruction_by_plate performs a nil-check Open
return if retention_error_row.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)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#duplicate_barcodes performs a nil-check Open
next if plate_barcode.nil? || sample_id.nil?
plate_id_for_sample = find_plate_id_for_sample_id(sample_id)
next if plate_id_for_sample.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)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#check_for_barcodes_unique performs a nil-check Open
return if duplicated_barcode_row.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)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#check_row_retention_value performs a nil-check Open
return 'Value cannot be blank.' if row_retention_value.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)
SampleManifestExcel::Upload::Processor::Plate#find_plate_id_for_sample_id doesn't depend on instance state (maybe move it to another class?) Open
def find_plate_id_for_sample_id(sample_id)
- Read upRead up
- Exclude checks
A Utility Function is any instance method that has no dependency on the state of the instance.
TODO found Open
# TODO: had to explicitly specify the namespace for Base here otherwise it picks up Upload::Base
- Exclude checks
Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring. Open
def non_matching_retention_instructions_for_plates
return nil, nil unless upload.respond_to?(:rows)
# Initialize empty retention_instructions hash to store retention instructions
upload
- Read upRead up
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 64.
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