E1920 Fix Code Climate Issues

This wiki page describes the changes are made in the Expertiza source code to implement E1920 OSS Project, "Fix Code Climate issues in models with names beginning with 'Se' thru 'Z'" in the Spring 2019 semester, CSC/ECE 517.

Introduction

This is intro section. We can talk about what is our project and how we got started.

Expertiza

Briefly talk about <ref>E. F. Gehringer, L. M. Ehresman, S. G. Conger and P. A. Wagle, "Work in Progress: Reusable Learning Objects Through Peer Review: The Expertiza Approach," Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, 2006, pp. 1-2. [1]</ref>

Code Climate

Code Climate is an analysis software used to improve the quality and security of your code. The Code Climate results for the Expertiza project can be found here.

Code Climate will use various engines to analyze your code to look for issues that may concern potential security issues, (.i.e. marking code to html_safe), or add to maintainability issues (.i.e number of lines in method exceeding 25 lines). Some of the engines include: RuboCop, Brakeman, Bundler-Audit, etc.

Code Climate can ran from either a 3rd party remote server of via the local application using CLI. The Expertiza project uses the 3rd party remote server to analyze the code. In order to use CodeClimate via remote server, you have to register your repository. Following this process will allow you to check your code for quality issues after Pushing your code to the monitored repository.

Project Description

Some of the Expertiza source code violates many of the Ruby on Rails best practices and must be rectified to improve code readability, robustness and maintainability of the Expertiza application.

Our team was assigned to fix all code smells detected by Code Climate in the given set of Expertiza source code files.

Files Involved

All files in the app/models directory with names beginning with Se (e.g. section_header.rb) through Z, except users_controller.rb file were targeted by our team to be Code Climate issue free files. Therefore, our team was assigned exactly with 50 (fifty) files to fix in total. Some of the files had no issues reported by the Code Climate to begin with, and hence were not modified. However, changes/improvements performed on other files had an affect globally on the files outside of the app/models scope and also had to be modified to adapt changes we implemented. For example, renaming method is_leaf as follows:

 def leaf?

in the team_user_node.rb file require to change all callers to this method in different files accordingly. Such changes had to be done in the following files (for this particular example):

• models/assignment_node.rb
• models/node.rb
• models/questionnaire_node.rb
• views/tree_display/_row_header.html.erb

These files are outside of the requirements specifications, but we had to modify them in order to maintain correct behavior of the App. There were few such cases when we had to modify multiple files to fix one or more Code Climate issue(s). The list of all of files changed can be found in the Pull Request discussed in this article.

Ignored Code Climate Smells

There are some Code Climate issues that were ignored and not resolved intentionally.

The following issues are exempt based the given requirements specifications and were not fixed:

• Assignment Branch Condition size for [method name] is too high.
• Perceived complexity for [method name] is too high.
• Cyclomatic complexity for [method name] is too high.
• Method [method name] has a Cognitive Complexity of XX (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
• File [file name] has XXX lines of code (exceeds 250 allowed). Consider refactoring.
• Class [class name] has XX methods (exceeds 20 allowed). Consider refactoring.
• Method [method name] has XX lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.

There are also two Code Climate issues that our team decided to ignore after consulting our mentor and discussing their impact on the existing code and Expertiza project. It was determined that the following Code Climate issues reported as False Positive and may not need to be resolved:

• Mass assignment is not restricted using attr_accessible.
• Potentially dangerous attribute available for mass assignment.

Finally, there was a duplicate code issue that was ignored due to a future project. The following files have a duplicate method, self.export_fields(options):

• user.rb
• participant.rb

For further clarification with regard to ignored Code Climate issues please contact our mentor.

Project Implementation

Talk about how we fixed the most common issues reported by Code Climate.

Most Common Issues Reported by Code Climate

As we worked on the Code Climate issues for the Expertiza project, we noticed a set of common code smells and issues made by software developers. Since these issues can easily be avoided and most importantly, avoiding them improves code quality, we decided to warn all Expertiza developers about them by providing the list of these issues, their descriptions, how they can be avoided, and how the code quality can be improved.

• Do not use Time.now / Time.parse without zone.

This is very common issue reported by Code Climate. Use one of Time.zone.now / Time.zone.parse

• Prefer each over for:

We noticed there is a lot of iteration in the code using for loop instead of each. Generally, you want to avoid any for loops and use each, each_index, each_with_index, upto and etc. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/sign_up_sheet.rb file):

 # Bad - use of for loop
 for user_signup_topic in user_signup
   return false if user_signup_topic.is_waitlisted == false
 
 # Good - use of each
 user_signup.each do |user_signup_topic|
   return false if user_signup_topic.is_waitlisted == false

Similarly, if you need to iterate the given block, passing in integer as an index, utilize each_index, each_with_index, upto instead of for. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/sign_up_sheet.rb file):

 # Bad - use of for loop
 for round in 1..@review_rounds
   process_review_round(assignment_id, due_date, round, topic)
 
 # Good - use of upto
 1.upto(@review_rounds) do |r|
   process_review_round(assignment_id, due_date, r, topic)

• Specify an :inverse_of option:

Whenever there are two models defined with many|one-to-one relationship (has_many|has_one and belongs_to association) out of scope of each other or with certain options used (e.g. foreign_key: and etc.), Active Record is unable to determine the inverse association of them. This would cause redundant look up operation performed on the database for the same object. It is not really an issue that could cause significant problems, but for such massive application like Experiza, it could affect performance and cause delay in response. Therefore, the :inverse_of option must be specified manually to use the associated object in memory instead of loading it from database twice. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/teams_user.rb and app/models/team_user_node.rb files respectively):

 class TeamsUser < ActiveRecord::Base
   has_one :team_user_node, foreign_key: 'node_object_id', dependent: :destroy, inverse_of: 'node_object'
 end
 
 class TeamUserNode < Node
   belongs_to :node_object, class_name: 'TeamsUser', inverse_of: :team_user_node
 end

• Specify a :dependent option:

The has_many association should always be specified with one of the :dependent options, which specifies the behavior of the associated objects whenever their owner is destroyed. This is common practice and should be utilized adequately for the Expertiza app to work correctly. No specifying :dependent option could lead to run time errors, unpredictable behavior of the app, and creating orphan objects that will never be referenced again. Specify a :dependent option whenever utilizing has_many association. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/site_controller.rb file):

 # Bad - not specifying a :dependent option
 class SiteController < ActiveRecord::Base
   has_many :controller_actions
 
 # Good - specifying a :dependent option
 class SiteController < ActiveRecord::Base
   has_many :controller_actions, dependent: :destroy

• Tagging a string as html safe may be a security risk:

For example,

 html.html_safe # George can you please talk about it how you fixed it

• Use a guard clause instead of wrapping the code inside a conditional expression.

This is very common issue reported by Code Climate that can be easily avoided by properly utilizing `if` statements applying some logic. In general, avoid using bulk of if/else statements whenever possible. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/sign_up_topic.rb file):

 # Bad - too many conditional expressions that also contain nested ones
 if !no_of_students_who_selected_the_topic.nil?
   if topic.max_choosers > no_of_students_who_selected_the_topic.size
     return true
   else
     return false
   end
 else
   return true
 end
 
 # Good - use guard close
 return true if no_of_students_who_selected_the_topic.nil?
 topic.max_choosers > no_of_students_who_selected_the_topic.size

Above is typical example when 9 lines of code (LoC) can be reduced to 2 LoC and overall code quality improved.

• Use find_by instead of where.first:

Always use find_by with an attempt to find the first record matching the specified conditions. However, keep in mind that find_by and where_first return different object IFF no record was found based on specified conditions.

• Model.find_by - if there is a record match, returns the object. If there is no record match, returns nil
• Model.where.first - if there is a record match, returns first ActiveRecord::Relation matched. If there is no record match, returns an Empty ActiveRecord::Relation

Therefore, always handle nil appropriately if there is no record match (with if/else block and etc.) Do not assume that the record will always be found. For example,

 user = User.find_by(name: row_hash[index.to_sym].to_s)
 raise ImportError, "The user, " + row_hash[index.to_sym].to_s.strip + ", was not found." if user.nil?

• Use snake_case for method names and for variable names:

There are a lot of instances where developers use camelCase instead of snake_case in the Expertiza project naming methods and variables. Since Expertiza project is based on RoR, it is preferred to use snake_case for all method and variable names. For example, (code sample is used from app/models/sign_up_sheet.rb and app/models/sign_up_topic.rb files receptively):

 # Bad method name - camelCase
 def self.slotAvailable?(topic_id)
 
 # Good method name - snake_case
 def self.slot_available?(topic_id)
 
 # Bad variable name - camelCase
 dropDate = AssignmentDueDate.where(parent_id: assignment.id, deadline_type_id: '6').first
 
 # Good method name - snake_case
 drop_date = AssignmentDueDate.where(parent_id: assignment.id, deadline_type_id: '6').first

Resolved Code Climate Issues

Along with Most Common Issues Reported by Code Climate we also fixed and verified numerous other code smells. The following is the list of all issues we have resolved:

• Avoid more than 3 levels of block nesting.
• Avoid using update_attribute because it skips validations.
• Convert if nested inside else to elsif.
• Do not place comments on the same line as the end keyword.
• Do not prefix reader method names with get_.
• Do not use DateTime.parse.strftime without zone. Use one of Time.zone.parse.strftime, DateTime.current, DateTime.parse.strftime.in_time_zone, DateTime.parse.strftime.utc, DateTime.parse.strftime.getlocal, DateTime.parse.strftime.iso8601, DateTime.parse.strftime.jisx0301, DateTime.parse.strftime.rfc3339, DateTime.parse.strftime.to_i, DateTime.parse.strftime.to_f instead.
• end at xxx, xx is not aligned with unless at xxx, xx
• Line is too long.
• Prefer Date or Time over DateTime.
• Rename has_x to x?.
• Rename is_x to x?.
• Replace class var @@variable_name with a class instance var.
• Similar blocks of code found in 2 locations. Consider refactoring.
• Unnecessary spacing detected.
• Use find_by instead of where.first.
• Useless assignment to variable - x.

Additional Improvements

Talk about additional improvements if there are any ( I(Nikolay) had some some I will include them here).

Remaining Issues

Talk about remaining issues and further improvements.

Further Suggestions

Talk about suggestions you have on files that you fixed if there are any? May be break down some methods into several and etc?

Pull Request

Let's add some info about pull request

Testing

There we 2 types of frame works that we used to verify our code modifications/creation within the models: RSpec and Travis CI.

RSpec was used to locally test the changes we had implemented without having to Push the change to the GitHub, this is discussed more in-depth in the section below.

Travis CI is a more comprehensive testing used by the Expetiza team to verify code changes from multiple sources, (.i.e forks from students). Travis CI will analyze the code once you Push your changes to the GitHub server for your given repository. Travis CI will need to be setup independently for your repository

Talk about Testing we performed

Rspec Testing

To verify the code changes we made did not break the existing application, we used the RSpec Testing Framework. Several of the models already had existing RSpecs Tests already created. For those, we just simply ran the corresponding test via the terminal window. Example

  rspec spec/models/tag_prompt_spec.rb
  
  *rspec path/to/spec/file.rb*

This would execute the RSpec test for the tag_prompt.rb file located in the app/models folder. As you can see, there is a particular format that is used when naming the RSpec file:

   model_name_spec.rb

Once the execution of the RSpec model testing is completed, results will be display

   $ rspec spec/models/tag_prompt_spec.rb                                                                                                                                                     [10:45:15]
   [Coveralls] Set up the SimpleCov formatter.
   [Coveralls] Using SimpleCov's 'rails' settings.
   Randomized with seed 19443
   .........
   Finished in 3.35 seconds (files took 23.23 seconds to load)
   9 examples, 0 failures
   Randomized with seed 19443
   Coverage report generated for RSpec to /home/expertiza_developer/RubymineProjects/expertiza_testbed/coverage. 1254 / 17313 LOC (7.24%) covered.
   [Coveralls] Outside the CI environment, not sending data.

In addition to running the individual RSpec Test, we also executed broader in scope testing. To achieve this, we executed the following command in the terminal window:

   $ bundle exec rspec --seed 5114  

This produces the following results:

   Finished in 1 minute 11.23 seconds (files took 23.19 seconds to load)
   131 examples, 1 failure, 1 pending
   
   Failed examples:
   
   rspec ./spec/features/assignment_creation_spec.rb:707 # assignment function check to find if the assignment can be added to a course
   
   Randomized with seed 5114
       
   Coverage report generated for RSpec to /home/expertiza_developer/RubymineProjects/expertiza_testbed/coverage. 2998 / 14031 LOC (21.37%) covered.
   [Coveralls] Outside the CI environment, not sending data.
   FAIL: 1

As you can see from the examples above there are failures. However, we are only looking for failures caused by the code we modified/created in a given model. In this case, all code we have created/modified is not causing failures.

UI Testing

We concentrated our UI testing based on how changes to Code Climate issues affected the interface between callers and methods. Two main culprits were found. The first was the change from Time.parse to Time.zone.parse. While Time.parse returns an error for invalid or unknown times, Time.zone.parse returns nil for those types. The second culprit was changing where().first to find_by(). Using where().first return empty records if nothing is found, while find_by() returns nil is nothing is found.

The user interface testing concentrated on three type of user stories. The first set of user stories was general functionality, could users still access the basic menu items from before. The second set of user stories were those that dealt with time issues, such as sorting. The third set of user stories were those that dealt with searching.

Conclusion

Talk about conclusion.

Team Contacts and Contribution

We have 3 (three) members in our team and 1 (one) mentor was assigned to us. For any project-related questions/concerns please contact us:

• Christopher Adkins - cladkins@ncsu.edu
• George Hugh - gshugh@ncsu.edu
• Nikolay G. Titov - ngtitov@ncu.edu
• Zachariah Mathews (mentor) - zmathew@ncsu.edu

If you have questions or concerns related to a specific file that was improved/modified by our team, please contact an engineer who worked on the file based on the Assignment Grid we created to keep track of our progress and contribution. Please CC in email all team members and our mentor.

References

• Ruby [2]
• CodeClimate [3]
• Expertiza [4]
• E. F. Gehringer, L. M. Ehresman, S. G. Conger and P. A. Wagle, "Work in Progress: Reusable Learning Objects Through Peer Review: The Expertiza Approach," Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, 2006, pp. 1-2. [5]