This cop checks if the length a class exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop checks that the cyclomatic complexity of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The cyclomatic complexity is the number of linearly independent paths through a method. The algorithm counts decision points and adds one.

An if statement (or unless or ?:) increases the complexity by one. An else branch does not, since it doesn't add a decision point. The && operator (or keyword and) can be converted to a nested if statement, and ||/or is shorthand for a sequence of ifs, so they also add one. Loops can be said to have an exit condition, so they add one.

This cop checks if the length of a method exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable.

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

This cop tries to produce a complexity score that's a measure of the complexity the reader experiences when looking at a method. For that reason it considers when nodes as something that doesn't add as much complexity as an if or a &&. Except if it's one of those special case/when constructs where there's no expression after case. Then the cop treats it as an if/elsif/elsif... and lets all the when nodes count. In contrast to the CyclomaticComplexity cop, this cop considers else nodes as adding complexity.

Example:

def my_method                   # 1
  if cond                       # 1
    case var                    # 2 (0.8 + 4 * 0.2, rounded)
    when 1 then func_one
    when 2 then func_two
    when 3 then func_three
    when 4..10 then func_other
    end
  else                          # 1
    do_something until a && b   # 2
  end                           # ===
end                             # 7 complexity points

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

This cop checks that the ABC size of methods is not higher than the configured maximum. The ABC size is based on assignments, branches (method calls), and conditions. See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbcMetric

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks if the length of a block exceeds some maximum value. Comment lines can optionally be ignored. The maximum allowed length is configurable. The cop can be configured to ignore blocks passed to certain methods.

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

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

• Cognitive Complexity docs
• Cognitive Complexity: A new way of measuring understandability

This cop checks for excessive nesting of conditional and looping constructs.

You can configure if blocks are considered using the CountBlocks option. When set to false (the default) blocks are not counted towards the nesting level. Set to true to count blocks as well.

The maximum level of nesting allowed is configurable.

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 48.

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

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 48.

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

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 48.

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

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 22.

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

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 22.

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

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 21.

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

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 21.

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

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 20.

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

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 20.

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

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

Checks that operators have space around them, except for ** which should not have surrounding space.

Example:

# bad
total = 3*4
"apple"+"juice"
my_number = 38/4
a ** b

# good
total = 3 * 4
"apple" + "juice"
my_number = 38 / 4
a**b

This cop checks for extra/unnecessary whitespace.

Example:

# good if AllowForAlignment is true
name      = "RuboCop"
# Some comment and an empty line

website  += "/bbatsov/rubocop" unless cond
puts        "rubocop"          if     debug

# bad for any configuration
set_app("RuboCop")
website  = "https://github.com/bbatsov/rubocop"

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

This cop checks for rescue blocks with no body.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  do_something
rescue
  # do nothing
end

Example:

# bad

begin
  do_something
rescue
  # do nothing
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  do_something
rescue
  handle_exception
end

Example:

# good

begin
  do_something
rescue
  handle_exception
end

This cop checks for every useless assignment to local variable in every scope. The basic idea for this cop was from the warning of ruby -cw:

assigned but unused variable - foo

Currently this cop has advanced logic that detects unreferenced reassignments and properly handles varied cases such as branch, loop, rescue, ensure, etc.

Example:

# bad

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something
end

Example:

# good

def some_method
  some_var = 1
  do_something(some_var)
end

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that operators have space around them, except for ** which should not have surrounding space.

Example:

# bad
total = 3*4
"apple"+"juice"
my_number = 38/4
a ** b

# good
total = 3 * 4
"apple" + "juice"
my_number = 38 / 4
a**b

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

Checks that block braces have or don't have a space before the opening brace depending on configuration.

Example:

# bad
foo.map{ |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

# good
foo.map { |a|
  a.bar.to_s
}

This cop checks against comparing a variable with multiple items, where Array#include? could be used instead to avoid code repetition.

Example:

# bad
a = 'a'
foo if a == 'a' || a == 'b' || a == 'c'

# good
a = 'a'
foo if ['a', 'b', 'c'].include?(a)

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

This cop checks for redundant parentheses.

Example:

# bad
(x) if ((y.z).nil?)

# good
x if y.z.nil?

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop makes sure that accessor methods are named properly.

Example:

# bad
def set_attribute(value)
end

# good
def attribute=(value)
end

# bad
def get_attribute
end

# good
def attribute
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for braces around the last parameter in a method call if the last parameter is a hash. It supports braces, no_braces and context_dependent styles.

Example: EnforcedStyle: braces

# The `braces` style enforces braces around all method
# parameters that are hashes.

# bad
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

Example: EnforcedStyle: no_braces (default)

# The `no_braces` style checks that the last parameter doesn't
# have braces around it.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)

Example: EnforcedStyle: context_dependent

# The `context_dependent` style checks that the last parameter
# doesn't have braces around it, but requires braces if the
# second to last parameter is also a hash literal.

# bad
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2})
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, a: 1, b: 2)

# good
some_method(x, y, a: 1, b: 2)
some_method(x, y, {a: 1, b: 2}, {a: 1, b: 2})

Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression

Example:

# bad
def test
  if something
    work
  end
end

# good
def test
  return unless something
  work
end

# also good
def test
  work if something
end

# bad
if something
  raise 'exception'
else
  ok
end

# good
raise 'exception' if something
ok

This cop checks whether some constant value isn't a mutable literal (e.g. array or hash).

Example:

# bad
CONST = [1, 2, 3]

# good
CONST = [1, 2, 3].freeze

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

This cop checks for usage of comparison operators (==, >, <) to test numbers as zero, positive, or negative. These can be replaced by their respective predicate methods. The cop can also be configured to do the reverse.

The cop disregards #nonzero? as it its value is truthy or falsey, but not true and false, and thus not always interchangeable with != 0.

The cop ignores comparisons to global variables, since they are often populated with objects which can be compared with integers, but are not themselves Interger polymorphic.

Example: EnforcedStyle: predicate (default)

# bad

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

# good

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

Example: EnforcedStyle: comparison

# bad

foo.zero?
foo.negative?
bar.baz.positive?

# good

foo == 0
0 > foo
bar.baz > 0

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end

This cop checks for redundant uses of self.

The usage of self is only needed when:

• Sending a message to same object with zero arguments in presence of a method name clash with an argument or a local variable.

• Calling an attribute writer to prevent an local variable assignment.

Note, with using explicit self you can only send messages with public or protected scope, you cannot send private messages this way.

Note we allow uses of self with operators because it would be awkward otherwise.

Example:

# bad
def foo(bar)
  self.baz
end

# good
def foo(bar)
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the argument.
end

def foo
  bar = 1
  self.bar  # Resolves name clash with the local variable.
end

def foo
  %w[x y z].select do |bar|
    self.bar == bar  # Resolves name clash with argument of the block.
  end
end