Having two cases in the same switch statement or branches in the same if structure 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 structure they should be combined, or for a switch, one should fall through to the other.
Moreover when the second and third operands of a ternary operator are the same, the operator will always return the same value regardless of the condition. Either the operator itself is pointless, or a mistake was made in coding it.
switch (i) {
case 1:
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
case 3: // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
doSomething();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
doTheThing();
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
doTheThing(); // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
if (b == 0) {
doOneMoreThing();
}
else {
doOneMoreThing(); // Noncompliant; duplicates then-branch
}
a = (b == 0) ? getValue() : getValue(); // Noncompliant
switch (i) {
case 1:
case 3:
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
if ((a >= 0 && a < 10) || (a >= 20 && a < 50)) {
doTheThing();
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
doOneMoreThing();
a = getValue();
or
switch (i) {
case 1:
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingDifferent();
break;
case 3:
doThirdThing();
break;
default:
doTheRest();
}
if (a >= 0 && a < 10) {
doTheThing();
else if (a >= 10 && a < 20) {
doTheOtherThing();
}
else if (a >= 20 && a < 50) {
doTheThirdThing();
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
if (b == 0) {
doOneMoreThing();
}
else {
doTheRest();
}
a = (b == 0) ? 0 : getValue();