Sample
int-e86b63c652d0-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local 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 is a simple POJO with clear, consistent structure: fields grouped at the top, followed by well-named setters and getters. Nesting is minimal, limited to a single ternary expression in two setters. Intent is clear from class and method names, and Javadoc comments effectively explain non-obvious behaviors (e.g., lazy-init semantics and nullable handling). Code length is appropriate for its purpose—no unnecessary abstraction or verbosity beyond helpful documentation. Each method performs a single action, improving granularity. The reading flow is natural, moving from field declarations to mutators and accessors in a logical order. Minor deductions could be made for the nullable Boolean primitive handling (which requires reading the comment to fully understand), but overall it exemplifies clean, maintainable Spring Framework code.
Run 3
The code is highly readable. It follows a standard JavaBean pattern with a clear, logical structure: fields, then setters and getters for each. There is no nesting beyond simple conditional expressions in setter methods. Intent is clear from descriptive method names and comprehensive Javadoc (though some Javadoc could be slightly more focused). The code is concise for what it does, with each line performing a single action, and the methods are very short. Reading flow is natural due to consistent ordering (setter then getter for each property). Minor deductions include verbose Javadoc for simple getters/setters and a slightly dense ternary expression in two setters.
Run 1
Code Structure: Fields precede logically paired setters and getters, giving the class a clear, consistent organization. Nesting: Methods are flat, with only simple boolean and ternary expressions. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit defaults, nullable annotations, and Javadoc clearly communicate the holder's purpose and distinguish unset lazy initialization from false. Code length: Implementation is concise; extensive documentation and repeated accessor boilerplate slightly increase reading effort but remain useful. Action granularity: Each statement performs one focused assignment or return, with straightforward string normalization. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable property grouping make navigation natural. Minor verbosity and reliance on externally defined integer mode constants prevent a perfect score.
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 default constants, nullability annotations, and useful Javadocs clearly explain behavior, including the distinction between unset and false lazy initialization. Code length: Implementations are concise, although extensive accessor documentation adds some repetition. Action granularity: Each line performs a single assignment or return; the simple ternary expressions remain easy to understand. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable method ordering make the class easy to scan. Minor readability costs come from repetitive documentation and integer-coded configuration values that require consulting external constants.
Run 3
Code Structure: Fields are grouped at the top, followed by logically paired setters and getters. Nesting: Methods are flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names, explicit defaults, nullability annotations, and useful Javadoc make the holder's purpose and behavior clear, including the distinction between isLazyInit() and getLazyInit(). Code length: Implementations are concise, though extensive accessor documentation adds some repetitive length. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single assignment or return; the simple conditional expressions remain easy to understand. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and predictable method ordering support smooth scanning. Minor verbosity and integer-based configuration values requiring reference to external constants prevent a perfect score.