ishangsf/rspec
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Modify rule S1871: LaYC format

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Fred Tingaud 2023-09-21 14:53:16 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent 85fd6c60dc
commit 32fcbebbd7
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 52 additions and 21 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

73
rules/S1871/rule.adoc
View File

@ -1,27 +1,28 @@
== Why is this an issue?
include::description.adoc[]
Having two `cases` in a `switch` statement or two branches in an `if` chain with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error.
=== Noncompliant code example
[source,text]
[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
switch (i) {
case 1:
case 1:
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
case 3: // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
doSomething();
break;
default:
default:
doTheRest();
}
----
[source,java,diff-id=2,diff-type=noncompliant]
----
if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
doFirstThing();
doTheThing();
@ -34,17 +35,53 @@ else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
doTheThing(); // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
doTheRest();
doTheRest();
}
----
If the same logic is truly needed for both instances, then:
* in an `if` chain they should be combined
[source,java,diff-id=2,diff-type=compliant]
----
if ((a >= 0 && a < 10) || (a >= 20 && a < 50)) { // Compliant
doFirstThing();
doTheThing();
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
----
* for a `switch`, one should fall through to the other.
[source,java,diff-id=1,diff-type=compliant]
----
switch (i) {
case 1:
case 3: // Compliant
doFirstThing();
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
----
When all blocks are identical, either this rule will trigger if there is no default clause or rule S3923 will raise if there is a default clause.
=== Exceptions
Blocks in an ``++if++`` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a ``++switch++`` statement that contain a single line of code with or without a following ``++break++``.
Unless all blocks are identical, blocks in an `if` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored. The same applies to blocks in a `switch` statement that contains a single line of code with or without a following `break`.
[source,text]
[source,java]
----
if (a == 1) {
doSomething(); //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
@ -55,14 +92,8 @@ if (a == 1) {
}
----
But this exception does not apply to ``++if++`` chains without ``++else++``-s, or to ``++switch++``-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of ``++if++`` chains with ``++else++``-s, or of ``++switch++``-es with default clauses, rule S3923 raises a bug.
== Resources
[source,text]
----
if (a == 1) {
doSomething(); //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
doSomething();
}
----
=== Related rules
* S3923 - All branches in a conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation