rspec/rules/S1871/ruby/rule.adoc

73 lines
1.9 KiB
Plaintext

Having two ``++when++`` clauses in a ``++case++`` 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 ``++case++``, duplicates should be refactored.
== Noncompliant Code Example
----
case i
when 1
doFirstThing()
doSomething()
when 2
doSomethingDifferent()
when 3 # Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
doFirstThing()
doSomething()
else
doTheRest()
end
if a >= 0 && a < 10
doFirstThing()
doTheThing()
elsif a >= 10 && a < 20
doTheOtherThing()
elsif a >= 20 && a < 50
doFirstThing()
doTheThing() # Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
else
doTheRest()
end
----
== Exceptions
Blocks in an ``++if++`` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a ``++case++`` statement that contain a single line of code.
----
if a ==
doSomething() # no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
elsif a == 2
doSomethingElse()
else
doSomething()
end
----
But this exception does not apply to ``++if++`` chains without ``++else++``-s, or to ``++case++``-es without ``++else++`` clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of ``++if++`` chains with ``++else++``-s, or of ``++case++``-es with ``++else++`` clauses, rule S3923 raises a bug.
----
if a == 1
doSomething() # Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
elsif a == 2
doSomething()
end
----
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[]