DateFormatterTest - Code Metrics - Inspection of "Automatic builds" - graze/ciff-renderer - Measure and Improve Code Quality continuously with Scrutinizer

Completed

Pull Request — master (#15)

by John

created 2016-04-25 10:59 UTC

DateFormatterTest A

↳ Parent: Project

Complexity

Total Complexity

Size/Duplication

Total Lines	49
Duplicated Lines	0 %

Coupling/Cohesion

Components	0
Dependencies	3

Importance

Changes	4
Bugs	1	Features	0

Metric	Value
wmc	2
c	4
b	1
f	0
lcom	0
cbo	3
dl	0
loc	49
rs	10

2 Methods

Rating	Name	Duplication	Size	Complexity
A	testFormat()	0	10	1
B	testGetDateFormatDataProvider()	0	26	1

<?php

namespace Graze\CiffRenderer\Test\Field\Parser\DateParser\DateFormatter;

use Graze\CiffRenderer\Field\Parser\DateParser\DateFormatter\DateFormatterFactory;
use \DateTimeImmutable;

class DateFormatterTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
    /**
     * @param string $expected
     * @param string $format
     *
     * @dataProvider testGetDateFormatDataProvider
     */
    public function testFormat($expected, $format)
    {
        $dateFormatter = DateFormatterFactory::getFormatter($format);

        $date = new DateTimeImmutable('1982-01-24');

        $actual = $dateFormatter->format($date, $format);

        $this->assertSame($expected, $actual);
    }

    /**
     * @return []

     */
    public function testGetDateFormatDataProvider()
    {
        return [
            ["24011982", "dd''MM''yyyy"],
            ["24 01 1982", "dd' 'MM' 'yyyy"],
            ["24.01.1982", "dd'.'MM'.'yyyy"],
            ["24,01,1982", "dd','MM','yyyy"],
            ["24-01-1982", "dd'-'MM'-'yyyy"],
            ["24\\01\\1982", "dd'\'MM'\'yyyy"],
            ["24:01:1982", "dd':'MM':'yyyy"],
            //["81", "y"],

            //["", "cl:yy"],

            ["24", "cl:j"],
            ["024", "cl:jj"],
            ["24", "cl:J"],
            ["024", "cl:JJ"],
            // ["dmy", "cl:yyc"],

            // ["dmy", "cl:dddc"],

            // ["dmy", "cl:wwc"],

            // ["dmy", "cl:d"],

            ["01", "MM"],
            ["this is constant:24/01/1982", "'this is constant:'dd'/'MM'/'yyyy"],
            ["24", "d"],
            //["dmy", "cl:x{Claricom.BarillaJulianDate}''cl:J"],

        ];
    }
}


1			<?php
2
3			namespace Graze\CiffRenderer\Test\Field\Parser\DateParser\DateFormatter;
4
5			use Graze\CiffRenderer\Field\Parser\DateParser\DateFormatter\DateFormatterFactory;
6			use \DateTimeImmutable;
7
8			class DateFormatterTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
9			{
10			/**
11			* @param string $expected
12			* @param string $format
13			*
14			* @dataProvider testGetDateFormatDataProvider
15			*/
16			public function testFormat($expected, $format)
17			{
18			$dateFormatter = DateFormatterFactory::getFormatter($format);
19
20			$date = new DateTimeImmutable('1982-01-24');
21
22			$actual = $dateFormatter->format($date, $format);
23
24			$this->assertSame($expected, $actual);
25			}
26
27			/**
28			* @return []
			0 ignored issues – show Documentation introduced 2016-04-23 22:58 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report The doc-type `[]` could not be parsed: Unknown type name "" at position 0. [(view supported doc-types) This check marks PHPDoc comments that could not be parsed by our parser. To see which comment annotations we can parse, please refer to our documentation on supported doc-types. Loading history...
29			*/
30			public function testGetDateFormatDataProvider()
31			{
32			return [
33			["24011982", "dd''MM''yyyy"],
34			["24 01 1982", "dd' 'MM' 'yyyy"],
35			["24.01.1982", "dd'.'MM'.'yyyy"],
36			["24,01,1982", "dd','MM','yyyy"],
37			["24-01-1982", "dd'-'MM'-'yyyy"],
38			["24\\01\\1982", "dd'\'MM'\'yyyy"],
39			["24:01:1982", "dd':'MM':'yyyy"],
40			//["81", "y"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `86%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
41			//["", "cl:yy"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `86%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
42			["24", "cl:j"],
43			["024", "cl:jj"],
44			["24", "cl:J"],
45			["024", "cl:JJ"],
46			// ["dmy", "cl:yyc"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `75%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
47			// ["dmy", "cl:dddc"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `75%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
48			// ["dmy", "cl:wwc"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `75%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
49			// ["dmy", "cl:d"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `75%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
50			["01", "MM"],
51			["this is constant:24/01/1982", "'this is constant:'dd'/'MM'/'yyyy"],
52			["24", "d"],
53			//["dmy", "cl:x{Claricom.BarillaJulianDate}''cl:J"],
			0 ignored issues – show Unused Code Comprehensibility introduced 2016-04-23 16:50 UTC by Report Bug Copy Issue Report `86%` of this comment could be valid code. Did you maybe forget this after debugging? Sometimes obsolete code just ends up commented out instead of removed. In this case it is better to remove the code once you have checked you do not need it. The code might also have been commented out for debugging purposes. In this case it is vital that someone uncomments it again or your project may behave in very unexpected ways in production. This check looks for comments that seem to be mostly valid code and reports them. Loading history...
54			];
55			}
56			}
57

graze / ciff-renderer

Pull Request — master (#15)

DateFormatterTest A

Complexity

Size/Duplication

Coupling/Cohesion

Importance

2 Methods

Duplication Side-by-Side

Filter issues like