rspec/rules/S1871/scala/rule.adoc

67 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext

Having two ``++cases++`` in a ``++match++`` 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 ``++match++``, one should fall through to the other.
== Noncompliant Code Example
----
value match {
case 1 =>
doFirstThing
doSomething
case 2 =>
doSomethingDifferent
case 3 => // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
doFirstThing
doSomething
case _ =>
doTheRest
}
if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
doFirstThing
doTheThing
}
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
doFirstThing
doTheThing // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
doTheRest
}
----
== Exceptions
Blocks in an ``++if++`` chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a ``++match++`` statement that contain a single line of code.
----
if(a == 1) {
doSomething //no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
} else if (a == 2) {
doSomethingElse
} else {
doSomething
}
----
But this exception does not apply to ``++if++`` chains without ``++else++``-s, or to ``++match++``-es without default clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of ``++if++`` chains with ``++else++``-s, or of ``++match++``-es with default clauses, rule S3923 raises a bug.
----
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[]
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]