# Looking for a Code review tool for ruby(checkstyle) **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [January 17, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/looking-for-a-code-review-tool-for-ruby-checkstyle/126297 "2008-01-17T06:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jet)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/looking-for-a-code-review-tool-for-ruby-checkstyle/126297/1 "2008-01-17T06:04:01Z")
I have been looking around for something like checkstyle (Java code review tool) for ruby. [http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html](http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html) Has anyone here ever come across a similar dilema wherein we need to enforce the quality of ruby code written in different projects. What strategy could we adopt? Plan B would be to maybe use a web based code review tool with manual reviews, but thats really going back. cheers… ---
**Author:** ![Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jet)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 6:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/looking-for-a-code-review-tool-for-ruby-checkstyle/126297/2 "2008-01-17T06:53:16Z")
The best code review tool is another person. Preferrably versed in the way of the Ruby. On Jan 17, 2008 3:33 PM, Jet [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > cheers… > > > – Ryan B. > **[frozenplague.net](http://www.frozenplague.net)** > > This domain may be for sale! Feel free to add me to MSN and/or GTalk as this email. ---
**Author:** ![Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jet)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/looking-for-a-code-review-tool-for-ruby-checkstyle/126297/3 "2010-07-13T18:19:37Z")
Hi Jet, This is the only one I could find, haven’t tried it yet, but it seems promising, if a bit young: [http://github.com/martinjandrews/roodi/tree](http://github.com/martinjandrews/roodi/tree) Jet wrote: > I have been looking around for something like checkstyle (Java code > review tool) for ruby. > [http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html](http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html) > Has anyone here ever come across a similar dilema wherein we need to > enforce the quality of ruby code written in different projects. > What strategy could we adopt? > Plan B would be to maybe use a web based code review tool with manual > reviews, but thats really going back. > > cheers… ---
**Author:** ![Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jet](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Jet)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/looking-for-a-code-review-tool-for-ruby-checkstyle/126297/4 "2010-07-16T03:07:27Z")
On Jul 13, 12:19 pm, Danny C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Hi Jet, > This is the only one I could find, haven’t tried it yet, but it seems > promising, if a bit young: > > [http://github.com/martinjandrews/roodi/tree](http://github.com/martinjandrews/roodi/tree) Metric\_fu includes roodi - it’s a decent place to start. > Jet wrote: > > > I have been looking around for something like checkstyle (Java code > > review tool) for ruby. > > [http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html](http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/availablechecks.html) I’ve personally found that (as Ryan suggested) the best “review” is a human reading the code. This is easier in Ruby than in Java, since there’s considerably less visual noise in a well-written block of Ruby. The metric\_fu tools do identify several of the remaining issues (code duplication, excessive cyclomatic complexity,etc) but aren’t really intended to be used proscriptively (in other words, making a hard rule “no complexity ratings over 5 EVAR!” will lead to problems) but rather as a roadmap for detailed human review. –Matt J.