metric_fu graphing, 1.9, and 'awesome' templates

So there have been a bunch of metric_fu releases since I announced 1.0.0 on this here blog. It's now up to version 1.1.4 and we've added:
  • Flog, Flay, Reek, Roodi, and Rcov now have graphs over time (thanks Édouard Brière).
  • Cool, dare we say 'Awesome,' templates for the metrics (thanks Nick Quaranto and Edouard Brière).
  • Flog report now tracks average Flog score per method and the average of the worst 5% of your methods.
  • MetricFu now works with Ruby 1.9.1 (thanks to Robert E. Rouse for his help).
On to the pics:

flog

main metric_fu

stats

saikuro

roodi

reek

rcov

flay

churn

Homepage
Google Group
Github Repo

Enjoy!

Comments

LeahC said…
hey those look great! Nice job Jake!
July 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Mark Wilden said…
Why are all your example metrics getting worse over time? :)
July 14, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Jake Scruggs said…
Well Mark, the project you're looking at was greenfield when the data points started being collected so it didn't have too many problems as there wasn't much code. Now we've accumulated some technical debt and have to pay it down. Amazing how fast that happens, huh?

Also, thanks for compliment Leah.
July 14, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's a Good Flog Score?

I've been using Flog to measure the complexity of my Ruby code and I was wondering how others interpret Flog numbers. I'll go first with my opinions: Score of Means 0-10 Awesome 11-20 Good enough 21-40 Might need refactoring 41-60 Possible to justify 61-100 Danger 100-200 Whoop, whoop, whoop 200 + Someone please think of the children (note: these are scores for an individual method) The 20 - 60 range is interesting to me. Sometimes the complexity of what you're doing will justify the score and other times the method is in desperate need of refactoring. The highest Flog score I've seen in the wild was in the 300's. What's you're personal high and what do you think of my rankings? In other news, I've redesigned the look of my blog so if you only see my post through a reader you might want to stop on by, take a look, and tell me what you think.
Read more

SICP Wasn’t Written for You

The number of software luminaries who sing the praises of “ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ” (referred to as SICP) is such a long list that you might think only a crazy person would take issue with it. However, to ignore SICP’s problems and continue to blindly recommend it seems just as crazy. SICP was the textbook for MIT’s introductory programming class and was a bit of a departure from other into to computer science textbooks at the time.  Wikipedia sums it up nicely:  “Before SICP, the introductory courses were almost always filled with learning the details of some programming language, while SICP focuses on finding general patterns from specific problems and building software tools that embody each pattern.”  Which sounds awesome, but does essentially say that abstract principles will be introduced before the nuts and bolts of a language.  If you think about that for a minute, you may see where the problems will be. When I was training to be a teacher I took a b
Read more

Point Inside a Polygon in Ruby

Recently my team needed to find out if a point was inside a given polygon and, as usual, we found some code on the internet that did what we wanted. And, as usual, there wasn't much explanation as to what it was doing. Here's the code (after we converted it to Ruby): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 def contains_point? (point) c = false i = -1 j = self .size - 1 while (i += 1 ) < self .size if (( self [i].y <= point.y && point.y < self [j].y) || ( self [j].y <= point.y && point.y < self [i].y)) if (point.x < ( self [j].x - self [i].x) * (point.y - self [i].y) / ( self [j].y - self [i].y) + self [i].x) c = !c end end j = i end return c end end So, you know, it works and I'm grateful to somebody for posting it but we had no idea how it works. So we wrapped 2 tests around it (one where the point is not in the polygon and another where it is
Read more