Sample

Dorn/java/199

Human rating uses the original dataset scale.

DatasetDorn
Human3.78
Lines10

Scores

MethodScoreScaleDataset rank
(0–100)
Posnett0.0830–1; higher is more readable
73.0Δ 8.9
Scalabrino0.6320–1; higher is more readable
65.9Δ 16.0
Dorn0.8460–1; higher is more readable
85.0Δ 3.1
Mi0.6110–1; higher is more readable
64.9Δ 17.0
LLOC6Logical lines; fewer is more readable
72.8Δ 9.1
DeepSeek V4 Pro17.330–20; mean of three runs
95.5Δ 13.6
GPT-6.1 Sol150–20; mean of three runs
52.8Δ 29.1
BTTF0.6080–1; higher is more readable
75.5Δ 6.4
Human3.781–5; original rating
81.9

Views

Source code

/** * @author Brian Wing Shun Chan */ public class ViewSitePublicPageDropDownTests extends BaseTestSuite { public static Test suite() { TestSuite testSuite = new TestSuite(); testSuite.addTestSuite(AddSitesTest.class); testSuite.addTestSuite(AddSitesPublicPageTest.class); testSuite.addTestSuite(ViewSitesPublicPageDropDownTest.class); testSuite.addTestSuite(TearDownSitesTest.class);

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

Feature contributions

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(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.254.188−8.388
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.589−6.884
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.10+4

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -2.402 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.402) = 0.083.

Score0.632

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(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.68+0.785
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
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.68+0.293
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.9.942−0.271
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.072+0.244

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.706 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.706) = 0.846.

Score0.611
Score6
Run 1

The code is straightforward and well-structured. It clearly defines a test suite class with a single static method that constructs and returns a TestSuite composed of four test classes in logical order. Nesting is minimal; the method is flat and easy to follow. Intent is unambiguous — assembling related public page drop-down tests. Length is concise, with no redundant code. Each action (creating the suite and adding each test class) is on its own line, enhancing readability. Reading flow is natural, presenting tests in a likely execution order (setup, action, verification, teardown). Minor improvements could include a class-level Javadoc explaining the suite’s purpose, but the method-level structure is clear enough. No deep nesting, no tangled logic, and no extraneous overhead.

Run 2

This code is highly readable. It follows a clear, standard JUnit test suite pattern. The class structure is logical and minimal. There is no deep nesting. The intent is obvious: to assemble a suite of related site tests in a specific order. The code is concise with one test-suite addition per line, which keeps the action granularity consistent. The reading flow is natural, moving from setup through page tests to teardown. Minor deductions: the incomplete method comment or missing closing braces in the snippet slightly reduce completeness, and the class name is somewhat long but descriptive.

Run 3

The code is highly readable due to its clear structure and logical organization. It defines a test suite class with a static factory method that sequentially adds related test classes, following the standard JUnit pattern. Nesting is minimal, with only one method and no conditional or loop complexity. Clarity of intent is strong: the class and method names clearly indicate that this suite tests the 'View Site Public Page Drop Down' functionality. Code length is concise, with no unnecessary lines beyond the Javadoc author tag, which some may consider redundant. Action granularity is excellent—each test suite addition is on its own line, enhancing readability. The reading flow is natural, progressing from setup-related tests to teardown, mirroring lifecycle order. Overall, this is exemplary test code with only minor stylistic concerns, such as the author tag.

Run 1

Code Structure: The test suite is logically organized into setup, page creation, dropdown verification, and teardown, but the snippet lacks a return statement and closing braces. Nesting: Shallow and easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and test names clearly communicate the suite's purpose. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: The sequential test registration reads naturally, though the abrupt ending makes the method appear incomplete.

Run 2

Code Structure: The suite setup is logically organized, with tests ordered from setup through execution to teardown, but the snippet lacks closing braces and a return statement. Nesting: Shallow class-and-method nesting makes it easy to scan. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class and test names clearly communicate the suite's purpose, although the author comment contributes little. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary implementation detail. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action on its own line. Reading flow: Test registration follows a natural lifecycle sequence, but the incomplete ending interrupts the flow and leaves the method's completion unclear.

Run 3

Code Structure: The class and suite method logically group test registration, but the snippet is incomplete, lacking a return statement and closing braces. Nesting: Shallow nesting makes it easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive class names and addTestSuite calls clearly communicate suite composition and execution order. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary logic; the author comment adds little to understanding behavior. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action on its own line. Reading flow: Setup, site creation, page viewing, and teardown form a natural sequence, though the abrupt ending interrupts readability.