45 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
45 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
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.
|
|
|
|
== 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
if 0 <= a < 10:
|
|
do_first()
|
|
elif 20 <= a < 50:
|
|
do_first() # Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
ifdef::rspecator-view[]
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
|
|
endif::rspecator-view[]
|