rspec/rules/S1871/kotlin/rule.adoc

62 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

2021-01-27 13:42:22 +01:00
Having two clauses in a ``++when++`` statement or two branches in an ``++if++`` chain 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 in an ``++if++`` chain they should be combined, or for a ``++when++``, duplicates should be refactored.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
== Noncompliant Code Example
2022-02-04 17:28:24 +01:00
[source,kotlin]
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
----
fun s1871(x: Int) {
when (x) {
1 -> {
val y = x / 2
print(y)
}
2 -> {
val y = x / 2
print(y)
}
}
}
----
== Exceptions
2021-01-27 13:42:22 +01:00
Blocks in an ``++if++`` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a ``++when++`` statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following ``++break++``.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
2021-02-02 15:02:10 +01:00
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
----
if (a == 1) {
doSomething() //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
doSomethingElse()
} else {
doSomething()
}
----
2021-01-27 13:42:22 +01:00
But this exception does not apply to ``++if++`` chains without ``++else++``-s, or to ``++when++``-es without ``++else++`` clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of ``++if++`` chains with ``++else++``-s, or of ``++when++``-es with default clauses, rule S3923 raises a bug.
2020-06-30 12:47:33 +02:00
----
if (a == 1) {
doSomething() //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
doSomething()
}
----
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)
include::../message.adoc[]
include::../highlighting.adoc[]
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]