58 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
58 lines
1.5 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
|
|
}
|
|
----
|