Having two cases
in a switch
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 switch
, one should fall through to the other.
switch (i) { case 1: doFirstThing(); doSomething(); break; case 2: doSomethingDifferent(); break; case 3: // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation doFirstThing(); doSomething(); break; default: 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(); }
Blocks in an if
chain that contain a single line of code are ignored, as are blocks in a switch
statement that contain a
single line of code with or without a following break
.
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 switch
-es without default clauses when
all branches have the same single line of code. In case of if
chains with else
-s, or of switch
-es with default
clauses, rule {rule:java:S3923} raises a bug.
if (a == 1) { doSomething(); //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not } else if (a == 2) { doSomething(); }