Sample
int-94921e374604-I11
Split eligible integer literals into pairs of short-named intermediate variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0.996 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.939 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.795 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.687 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 27 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 18.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 19 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.72 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 128 | +51.2 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 1427.996 | −47.124 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.888 | −7.331 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 5.615 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(5.615) = 0.996.
| Score | 0.939 |
|---|
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 123 | −3.319 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 74 | +1.822 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 127.781 | +1.376 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 94.961 | +0.728 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.032 | +0.635 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 1 | +0.398 |
| 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. | 94.953 | −0.357 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 1.354 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(1.354) = 0.795.
| Score | 0.687 |
|---|
| Score | 27 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable. Package and imports are clear, and the class has a focused responsibility. Fields are logically organized with sensible defaults. All public methods are simple, flat, one-action-per-line getters/setters with no deep nesting. Javadoc comments clearly explain intent, constraints, and defaults, aiding understanding. Method names are descriptive, and the use of @Nullable improves contract clarity. The only minor issue is the slight redundancy of having both isLazyInit() and getLazyInit(), but this is a common spring pattern to distinguish primitive boolean semantics from nullable Boolean. Code length is concise and not bloated. Overall, it follows clean code practices consistently.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It follows a simple, consistent structure: fields at the top, then getter/setter pairs. There is minimal nesting, with only a single ternary expression in the setter methods. Intent is clear through descriptive method and field names, and concise Javadoc comments explain purpose and defaults. The class is short and focused, with one action per line in the method bodies. Reading flow is natural, moving from fields to accessors. The only minor deductions are for slight redundancy in the Javadoc and the use of magic constant references (like AbstractBeanDefinition.AUTOWIRE_NO) which require some contextual knowledge.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It has a clear, logical structure with fields grouped at the top and accessor methods following. There is no deep nesting, and each method performs a single, clear action. Javadoc comments provide excellent clarity of intent, explaining the purpose, defaults, and edge cases. Code length is appropriate for a simple data holder. Reading flow is natural due to consistent getter/setter ordering. Minor deductions: some historic terms like 'automagical' in comments and redundant parenthesis in the lazy-init getter slightly reduce polish, but overall readability is strong.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields precede logically paired setters and getters, creating a well-organized defaults holder. Nesting: Methods are flat, with only simple boolean and ternary expressions. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit default constants, nullable annotations, and Javadoc clearly explain behavior, including unset versus false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise; extensive documentation and some repeated getter descriptions slightly increase reading overhead. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single clear assignment or return, with straightforward input normalization in the method-name setters. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and property-by-property grouping make the class easy to scan and follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Fields are grouped first, followed by logically paired setters and getters. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit defaults, nullable annotations, and useful Javadoc clearly communicate behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise; extensive documentation and repetitive accessors add length but remain appropriate for a public API. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear assignment or return; the simple conditional expressions are easy to follow. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and property-by-property organization support natural reading. Minor readability costs come from verbose documentation and integer modes whose meanings require consulting external constants.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields are grouped first, followed by logically paired setters and getters. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit default constants, nullable annotations, and documentation clearly communicate behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise; extensive, occasionally repetitive documentation adds length but provides useful context. Action granularity: Each line performs one assignment or return; simple conditional expressions remain easy to understand. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable accessor ordering make the class easy to scan. Minor drawbacks are documentation verbosity and integer-coded modes that require consulting external constants.