Why is this an issue?
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.
Noncompliant code example
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();
}
Exceptions
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 S3923 raises a bug.
if (a == 1) {
doSomething(); //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
} else if (a == 2) {
doSomething();
}
