Source code
Official dataset source · Dorn/java/191
Sample
Dorn/java/191
Human rating uses the original dataset scale.
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale | Dataset rank (0–100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.107 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 73.8Δ 3.3 |
| Scalabrino | 0.761 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 84.1Δ 6.9 |
| Dorn | 0.88 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 92.5Δ 15.3 |
| Mi | 0.651 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 73.0Δ 4.2 |
| LLOC | 3 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable | 88.6Δ 11.4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 9.67 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 39.4Δ 37.7 |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs | 58.6Δ 18.5 |
| BTTF | 0.649 | 0–1; higher is more readable | 85.5Δ 8.4 |
| Human | 3.71 | 1–5; original rating | 77.2 |
Views
Select the downloaded ZIP or its extracted folder. Files stay in your browser.
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 227.549 | −7.509 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.987 | −7.481 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 10 | +4 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -2.12 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.12) = 0.107.
| Score | 0.761 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 58 | +1.209 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 11 | +0.647 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 8 | −0.46 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 9.881 | −0.272 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.069 | +0.27 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 58 | +0.131 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.992 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.992) = 0.88.
| Score | 0.651 |
|---|
| Score | 3 |
|---|
Run 1
The code snippet is too incomplete to fully evaluate, but what is visible shows mixed readability. The structure is logical for a test class with a clear test method. The import statements are minimal and the Javadoc author tag provides some context. However, the code cuts off abruptly mid-method, making it impossible to assess the complete logic. The visible portion shows good action granularity with one operation per line, though the method name 'testAddFrontPage' clearly indicates intent. The nesting appears flat in the visible portion, but the incomplete state prevents a proper evaluation. The 'loadRequiredJavaScriptModules()' call suggests additional setup logic that cannot be assessed. Overall, the code follows basic test patterns but lacks sufficient context for a higher score.
Run 2
The code is short and relatively flat, so nesting and action granularity are acceptable. However, the snippet is incomplete, limiting structural assessment. The class and method names are reasonably clear, but the intent of the test is not fully evident from the code alone. The use of 'selenium.open' and 'loadRequiredJavaScriptModules' indicates actions, but ambiguous naming like 'loadRequiredJavaScriptModules' lacks immediate clarity. Since only a fragment is shown, overall code organization and reading flow cannot be fully evaluated.
Run 3
The code snippet is too short to fully evaluate, but it demonstrates some readability issues. The class and method names are clear, but the test method immediately mixes actions (selenium.open, loadRequiredJavaScriptModules) without any comments or separation of intent. The use of RuntimeVariables is unclear from this excerpt. The code is flat and not nested, but the reading flow is disjointed because the actions lack context or explanation. Action granularity is fine with one action per line. However, the abbreviation 'portalweb' and the lack of documentation beyond the author tag reduce clarity. Additional lines would allow a more thorough assessment, but based on this fragment, the code is moderately readable but lacks sufficient context and clarity of intent.
Run 1
Code Structure: Imports, class declaration, and test method are logically organized, but the snippet lacks closing braces. Nesting: Shallow class-and-method nesting is easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and method names indicate a front-page test, though the visible actions only open the home page and load JavaScript modules; no page addition or assertion appears. Code length: Concise, with an apparently unused RuntimeVariables import. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: Setup steps follow a natural sequence, but the abrupt ending prevents evaluating the complete test.
Run 2
Code Structure: Imports, class declaration, and test method are logically organized, but missing closing braces leave the snippet incomplete. Nesting: Shallow class and method nesting is easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Class and method names suggest a front-page test, while the visible operations only open the home page and load JavaScript modules; no page addition or assertion is shown. Code length: Concise, though the unused RuntimeVariables import adds minor clutter. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: Conventional Java formatting and a straightforward operation sequence support natural reading, but the abrupt ending prevents understanding the complete test.
Run 3
Code Structure: The imports, class, and test method are logically organized, but the snippet lacks closing braces and is incomplete. Nesting: Only standard class and method nesting is present. Clarity of intent: Names indicate a front-page test, though the visible actions only open the home page and load JavaScript modules; no page addition or assertion is shown. Code length: Very concise, with no unnecessary implementation detail. Action granularity: Each operation occupies its own line. Reading flow: The sequence is natural and indentation is consistent, but the abrupt ending prevents understanding the complete test.