SonarCloud Metrics
GitPulse integrates with SonarCloud to provide comprehensive code quality analysis, helping you maintain high standards across your codebase.
Code Quality Overview
SonarCloud analyzes your code for quality, reliability, and security issues, providing actionable insights to improve your codebase health.

Key Quality Metrics
Maintainability Rating
The maintainability rating evaluates code complexity and technical debt:
- A (Excellent): Very low complexity, easy to maintain
- B (Good): Low complexity, manageable
- C (Fair): Moderate complexity, some technical debt
- D (Poor): High complexity, significant technical debt
- E (Critical): Very high complexity, difficult to maintain
What it measures: - Code complexity (cyclomatic complexity) - Code duplication - Technical debt ratio - Code smells and anti-patterns
Reliability Rating
The reliability rating assesses code stability and bug density:
- A (Excellent): Very few bugs, highly reliable
- B (Good): Low bug density, reliable
- C (Fair): Moderate bug density
- D (Poor): High bug density, unstable
- E (Critical): Very high bug density, unreliable
What it measures: - Bug density - Code coverage - Test quality - Error handling
Security Rating
The security rating evaluates security vulnerabilities and hotspots:
- A (Excellent): Very few security issues
- B (Good): Low security risk
- C (Fair): Moderate security concerns
- D (Poor): High security risk
- E (Critical): Critical security vulnerabilities
What it measures: - Security hotspots - Vulnerability density - Security rule violations - OWASP compliance
Security Review Rating
Additional security analysis focusing on:
- A (Excellent): No security hotspots
- B (Good): Few security hotspots
- C (Fair): Some security concerns
- D (Poor): Many security hotspots
- E (Critical): Critical security hotspots
Quality Gate Status
Each repository shows a quality gate status indicating overall code quality:
Pass Criteria
- Maintainability: A or B rating
- Reliability: A or B rating
- Security: A or B rating
- Security Review: A or B rating
- Coverage: Meets minimum threshold
- Duplications: Below maximum threshold
Fail Criteria
- Any metric below the minimum threshold
- Critical issues that must be addressed
- Security vulnerabilities requiring immediate attention
Detailed Analysis
Code Smells
Code smells indicate potential problems in your code:
- Long Methods: Methods that are too complex
- Large Classes: Classes with too many responsibilities
- Duplicated Code: Code that could be refactored
- Complex Conditions: Overly complex conditional logic
- Magic Numbers: Hard-coded values that should be constants
Technical Debt
Technical debt represents the cost of maintaining code:
- Remediation Cost: Time to fix all issues
- Interest: Additional cost of not fixing issues
- Principal: Original cost of shortcuts taken
- Ratio: Technical debt relative to development cost
Code Coverage
Test coverage measures how well your code is tested:
- Line Coverage: Percentage of lines executed by tests
- Branch Coverage: Percentage of branches executed by tests
- Function Coverage: Percentage of functions called by tests
- Statement Coverage: Percentage of statements executed by tests
Setting Up SonarCloud
1. Create SonarCloud Account
- Go to SonarCloud
- Sign up with your GitHub account
- Create an organization for your projects
2. Configure Repository
- Add your repository to SonarCloud
- Configure analysis settings
- Set up quality gate criteria
- Enable automatic analysis
3. Integrate with GitPulse
- Ensure SonarCloud analysis is running
- Index your repository in GitPulse
- SonarCloud data will be automatically imported
Quality Gate Configuration
Default Thresholds
- Maintainability: A or B rating
- Reliability: A or B rating
- Security: A or B rating
- Security Review: A or B rating
- Coverage: 80% minimum
- Duplications: 3% maximum
Custom Configuration
You can customize quality gate criteria:
- Adjust Thresholds: Modify minimum requirements
- Add Custom Rules: Include project-specific criteria
- Set Priorities: Define which issues block the gate
- Configure Alerts: Set up notifications for failures
Best Practices
Improving Code Quality
- Regular Reviews: Check SonarCloud reports weekly
- Fix Critical Issues: Address A and B rated problems first
- Refactor Complex Code: Break down large methods and classes
- Add Tests: Increase code coverage to 80% or higher
- Remove Duplications: Consolidate repeated code
Team Collaboration
- Code Reviews: Include SonarCloud issues in reviews
- Sprint Planning: Allocate time for technical debt
- Quality Goals: Set team targets for ratings
- Knowledge Sharing: Share best practices for clean code
Continuous Improvement
- Monitor Trends: Track quality metrics over time
- Set Goals: Establish quality improvement targets
- Celebrate Success: Recognize quality improvements
- Learn from Issues: Use problems as learning opportunities
Troubleshooting
Common Issues
Missing SonarCloud Data
- Cause: SonarCloud not configured or analysis failed
- Solution: Check SonarCloud project status and configuration
Quality Gate Always Failing
- Cause: Thresholds too strict or many issues
- Solution: Adjust quality gate criteria or fix critical issues
Outdated Metrics
- Cause: SonarCloud analysis not running regularly
- Solution: Check SonarCloud configuration and triggers
Getting Help
- SonarCloud Documentation: docs.sonarqube.org
- Quality Gate Guide: Quality Gate Documentation
- Community Support: SonarCloud community forums
Advanced Features
Custom Rules
- Project-Specific Rules: Create rules for your coding standards
- Custom Quality Profiles: Define your own quality criteria
- Rule Templates: Share rules across projects
Integration Options
- CI/CD Integration: Automatic analysis in pipelines
- IDE Integration: Real-time feedback in your editor
- API Access: Programmatic access to quality data
- Webhook Notifications: Real-time quality alerts
📚 Related Documentation
- Repository Overview - Complete repository analytics
- Security Health Score - Security metrics
- Quality Gates - Pass/fail criteria
- Technical Debt - Code complexity analysis