Show the cognitive complexity of the code

This package is a direct treesit port of the tree-sitter based codemetrics. It implements live calculation of the Cognitive Complexity metric, which was proposed by G. Ann Campbell in Cognitive Complexity - A new way of measuring understandability (c) SonarSource S.A. 2016-2021, Switzerland.

Abstract: Cyclomatic Complexity was initially formulated as a measurement of the "testability and maintainability" of the control flow of a module. While it excels at measuring the former, its underlying mathematical model is unsatisfactory at producing a value that measures the latter. This white paper describes a new metric that breaks from the use of mathematical models to evaluate code in order to remedy Cyclomatic Complexity’s shortcomings and produce a measurement that more accurately reflects the relative difficulty of understanding, and therefore of maintaining methods, classes, and applications.

Please note that this documentation is not up-to-date (it is basically the same as codemetrics'), I will try to enrich it with cognitive-complexity specifc information later!

(use-package cognitive-complexity :straight (:host github :repo "emacs-vs/cognitive-complexity"))

git clone https://github.com/emacs-vs/cognitive-complexity /path/to/lib

then in Emacs:

(add-to-list 'load-path "/path/to/lib") (require 'cognitive-complexity)

or

(use-package cognitive-complexity :load-path "/path/to/lib")

The simplest way to start using this package:

(cognitive-complexity-mode 1)

These are functions you can use to analyze:

All these functions return the score data indicating the complexity.

These languages are fairly complete:

• Bash
• C / C++ / C#
• Elisp
• Go
• Java / JavaScript / JSX / Julia
• Kotlin
• Lua
• PHP / Python
• Ruby / Rust
• Swift
• TypeScript / TSX

These languages are in development:

• Agda
• Elm
• Elixir
• OCaml
• Scala (upstream, kinda buggy)

Although cognitive-complexity aims to have good analysis rules out of the box for all supported definitions, people will indubitably have their own preferences or desired functionality. The following section outlines how to add your own analysis definitions and analysis functions to make cognitive-complexity work for you. If there are any improvements you find for existing or new languages, please do raise a PR so that others may benefit from better analysis in the future!

Code-Metrics defines all its analysis definitions in the variable cognitive-complexity-rules which is an alist with the key of the alist being the mode and the value being another alist of analysis definitions.

;; Example of cognitive-complexity-rules' structure '((c-mode . c-analysis-definitions) ; <language>-analysis-definitions is structured as shown below (csharp-mode . csharp-analysis-definitions) (go-mode . go-analysis-definitions) (scala-mode . scala-analysis-definitions) ...) ;; Examle of a analysis definition alist (setq csharp-analysis-definitions (if_statement . (1 t)) ("&&" . cognitive-complexity-rules--logical-operators))

So you can select whatever node that you want to analyze on it.

To find what node you'll want to analyze, refer to the tree-sitter documentation about viewing nodes. tree-sitter-debug and tree-sitter-query-builder are both very useful for this.

Let's look at a quick example of adding a new analysis definition. Let's say you want to add analysis to go-mode's if_statement. The analysis definition that is needed will be '("if_statement" . (1 t)). To add this to the cognitive-complexity-rules, you can do something like the following.

(push '("if_statement" . (1 t)) (alist-get 'go-mode cognitive-complexity-rules))

Now the new analysis definition should be usable by cognitive-complexity!

For more complex analysis, you can write your own analysis rules!

• node - (optional) the targeted tree-sitter node, in this example, if_statement will be the targeting node.
• depth - (optional) current depth of from the root tree.
• nested - (optional) current nested level apply from current complexity algorithm.

Then the function needs to return an integer represent the score and a boolean represent increment of the nested level in the form (score-to-add . nested?). This can be useful if you want to add extra conditional logic onto your analysis.

As an example of an analysis function, take a look at the definition of the basic cognitive-complexity-rules--class-declaration.

(defun cognitive-complexity-rules--class-declaration (_node depth _nested) "..." (cognitive-complexity-with-metrics (if (< 1 depth) ; if class inside class, '(1 nil) ; we score 1, but don't increase nested level '(0 nil)) '(1 nil)))

• codemetrics
• Code Metrics - Visual Studio Code Extension
• CognitiveComplexity for Rider and ReSharper
• gocognit

To run the test locally, you will need the following tools:

• Eask
• Make (optional)

Install all dependencies and development dependencies:

eask install-deps --dev

To test the package's installation:

eask package eask install

To test compilation:

eask compile

🪧 The following steps are optional, but we recommend you follow these lint results!

The built-in checkdoc linter:

eask lint checkdoc

The standard package linter:

eask lint package

📝 P.S. For more information, find the Eask manual at https://emacs-eask.github.io/.

When adding a new analysis rules, add the analysis definition function to cognitive-complexity.el itself near where the other rules functions live and then add the parser to cognitive-complexity-rules.el file. Finally, if you are adding support for a new language, remember to add it to the cognitive-complexity-rules variable.

When creating a new parser, name it cognitive-complexity-rules-<language>.

When creating a new analysis function, name it cognitive-complexity-rules-<language>-<feature> or something similar.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/.

See LICENSE for details.