studioespresso/craft-seo-fields

Jump statements (return, break, continue, and goto) and throw expressions move control flow out of the current code block. Typically, any statements in a block that come after a jump or throw are simply wasted keystrokes lying in wait to confuse the unwary.

Rarely, as illustrated below, code after a jump or throw is reachable. However, such code is difficult to understand, and should be refactored.

Noncompliant Code Example

function fun($a) {
  $i = 10;
  return $i + $a;
  $i++;             // this is never executed
}

function foo($a) {
  if ($a == 5) {
    goto error;
  } else {
    // do the job
  }
  return;

  error:
    printf("don't use 5"); // this is reachable but unreadable

}

Compliant Solution

function fun($a) {
  $i = 10;
  return $i + $a;
}

function foo($a) {
  if ($a == 5) {
    handleError();
  } else {
    // do the job
  }
  return;
}

See

• MISRA C:2004, 14.1 - There shall be no unreachable code
• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-1 - A project shall not contain unreachable code
• MISRA C++:2008, 0-1-9 - There shall be no dead code
• MISRA C:2012, 2.1 - A project shall not contain unreachable code
• MISRA C:2012, 2.2 - There shall be no dead code
• MITRE, CWE-561 - Dead Code
• CERT, MSC56-J. - Detect and remove superfluous code and values
• CERT, MSC12-C. - Detect and remove code that has no effect or is never executed
• CERT, MSC07-CPP. - Detect and remove dead code

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Shadowing fields with a local variable is a bad practice that reduces code readability: it makes it confusing to know whether the field or the variable is being used.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public $myField;

  public function doSomething() {
    $myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Programmers should not comment out code as it bloats programs and reduces readability.

Unused code should be deleted and can be retrieved from source control history if required.

See

• MISRA C:2004, 2.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out".
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-2 - Sections of code shall not be "commented out" using C-style comments.
• MISRA C++:2008, 2-7-3 - Sections of code should not be "commented out" using C++ comments.
• MISRA C:2012, Dir. 4.4 - Sections of code should not be "commented out"

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

function run() {
  prepare('action1');                              // Non-Compliant - 'action1' is duplicated 3 times
  execute('action1');
  release('action1');
}

Compliant Solution

ACTION_1 = 'action1';

function run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.