rspec/rules/S1871/python/rule.adoc

37 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Having two branches in the same `+if+` structure with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then they should be combined.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
== Noncompliant Code Example
----
if 0 <= a < 10:
do_first()
do_second()
elif 10 <= a < 20:
do_the_other_thing()
elif 20 <= a < 50:
do_first() # Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
do_second()
----
== Exceptions
Blocks in an `+if+` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
----
if 0 <= a < 10:
do_first()
elif 10 <= a < 20:
do_the_other_thing()
elif 20 <= a < 50:
do_first() # no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
----
But this exception does not apply to `+if+` chains without `+else+`-s when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of `+if+` chains with `+else+`-s rule S3923 raises a bug.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
----
if 0 <= a < 10:
do_first()
elif 20 <= a < 50:
do_first() # Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
----