Sample

int-100043cd5706-I05

Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation

Matched original source

Lines143

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.660–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.6970–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.170–1; higher is more readable
LLOC33Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro16.670–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol170–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.5140–1; higher is more readable

Views

Source code

package org.springframework.core; import java.lang.reflect.Method; import java.lang.reflect.Proxy; import java.util.LinkedHashMap; import java.util.LinkedHashSet; import java.util.Map; import java.util.Set; import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable; import org.springframework.util.ClassUtils; import org.springframework.util.ReflectionUtils; /** * Defines the algorithm for searching for metadata-associated methods exhaustively * including interfaces and parent classes while also dealing with parameterized methods * as well as common scenarios encountered with interface and class-based proxies. * * <p>Typically, but not necessarily, used for finding annotated handler methods. * * @author Juergen Hoeller * @author Rossen Stoyanchev * @author Sam Brannen * @since 4.2.3 */ public final class MethodIntrospector { private MethodIntrospector() { } /** * Select methods on the given target type based on the lookup of associated metadata. * <p>Callers define methods of interest through the {@link MetadataLookup} parameter, * allowing to collect the associated metadata into the result map. * @param targetType the target type to search methods on * @param metadataLookup a {@link MetadataLookup} callback to inspect methods of interest, * returning non-null metadata to be associated with a given method if there is a match, * or {@code null} for no match * @return the selected methods associated with their metadata (in the order of retrieval), * or an empty map in case of no match */ public static <T> Map<Method, T> selectMethods(Class<?> targetType, final MetadataLookup<T> metadataLookup) { final Map<Method, T> methodMap = new LinkedHashMap<>(); Set<Class<?>> handlerTypes = new LinkedHashSet<>(); Class<?> specificHandlerType = null; if (!Proxy.isProxyClass(targetType)) { specificHandlerType = ClassUtils.getUserClass(targetType); handlerTypes.add(specificHandlerType); } handlerTypes.addAll(ClassUtils.getAllInterfacesForClassAsSet(targetType)); for (Class<?> currentHandlerType : handlerTypes) { final Class<?> targetClass = (specificHandlerType != null ? specificHandlerType : currentHandlerType); ReflectionUtils.doWithMethods(currentHandlerType, method -> { Method specificMethod = ClassUtils.getMostSpecificMethod(method, targetClass); T result = metadataLookup.inspect(specificMethod); if (result != null) { Method bridgedMethod = BridgeMethodResolver.findBridgedMethod(specificMethod); if (bridgedMethod == specificMethod || bridgedMethod == method || bridgedMethod.equals(specificMethod) || bridgedMethod.equals(method) || metadataLookup.inspect(bridgedMethod) == null) { methodMap.put(specificMethod, result); } } }, ReflectionUtils.USER_DECLARED_METHODS); } return methodMap; } /** * Select methods on the given target type based on a filter. * <p>Callers define methods of interest through the {@code MethodFilter} parameter. * @param targetType the target type to search methods on * @param methodFilter a {@code MethodFilter} to help * recognize handler methods of interest * @return the selected methods, or an empty set in case of no match */ public static Set<Method> selectMethods(Class<?> targetType, final ReflectionUtils.MethodFilter methodFilter) { return selectMethods(targetType, (MetadataLookup<Boolean>) method -> (methodFilter.matches(method) ? Boolean.TRUE : null)).keySet(); } /** * Select an invocable method on the target type: either the given method itself * if actually exposed on the target type, or otherwise a corresponding method * on one of the target type's interfaces or on the target type itself. * <p>Matches on user-declared interfaces will be preferred since they are likely * to contain relevant metadata that corresponds to the method on the target class. * @param method the method to check * @param targetType the target type to search methods on * (typically an interface-based JDK proxy) * @return a corresponding invocable method on the target type * @throws IllegalStateException if the given method is not invocable on the given * target type (typically due to a proxy mismatch) */ public static Method selectInvocableMethod(Method method, Class<?> targetType) { if (method.getDeclaringClass().isAssignableFrom(targetType)) { return method; } try { String methodName = method.getName(); Class<?>[] parameterTypes = method.getParameterTypes(); for (Class<?> ifc : targetType.getInterfaces()) { try { return ifc.getMethod(methodName, parameterTypes); } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) { // Alright, not on this interface then... } } // A final desperate attempt on the proxy class itself... return targetType.getMethod(methodName, parameterTypes); } catch (NoSuchMethodException ex) { throw new IllegalStateException(String.format( "Need to invoke method '%s' declared on target class '%s', " + "but not found in any interface(s) of the exposed proxy type. " + "Either pull the method up to an interface or switch to CGLIB " + "proxies by enforcing proxy-target-class mode in your configuration.", method.getName(), method.getDeclaringClass().getSimpleName())); } } /** * A callback interface for metadata lookup on a given method. * @param <T> the type of metadata returned */ @FunctionalInterface public interface MetadataLookup<T> { /** * Perform a lookup on the given method and return associated metadata, if any. * @param method the method to inspect * @return non-null metadata to be associated with a method if there is a match, * or {@code null} for no match */ @Nullable T inspect(Method method); } }

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.3736.929−123.319
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.143+57.2
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.917−7.376

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -64.625 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-64.625) = 0.

Score0.66

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.143−4.027
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.93+2.48
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.142.912+1.588
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.111.986−1.078
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.111.965+1.002
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.056+0.398
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.1+0.398

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.831 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.831) = 0.697.

Score0.17
Score33
Run 1

The code is well-structured and highly readable. It has a clear, logical organization with a private constructor enforcing utility class semantics. Javadoc comments are comprehensive and explain intent. Nesting is controlled: the main selectMethods method uses a single for-loop and a lambda, avoiding deep indentation. The selectInvocableMethod has a try-catch with a nested try-catch inside a loop, but it is handled cleanly with explanatory comments. Intent is clear from method and variable names. Code length is concise; the bridge method resolution condition is complex but unavoidable for the domain. Each line performs a single logical action, improving clarity. Reading flow is natural, moving from broad utility methods to specific lookup logic. Overall, this is an excellent example of readable Spring framework code.

Run 2

The code is generally well-structured, with clear separation of public methods, a private constructor, and a nested functional interface. Class-level Javadoc clearly explains the purpose. However, the `selectMethods` method contains a long, complex conditional chain for bridge method resolution that is difficult to parse quickly. The `selectInvocableMethod` method also has somewhat tangled logic with nested try/catch blocks and a 'final desperate attempt' comment. While comments and formatting are good, the deep conditional logic and multi-step action sequences reduce readability. The use of descriptive variable names and constant usage improves clarity, but some sections could be refactored into smaller helper methods for better action granularity and flow.

Run 3

The code is generally well-structured and readable. Methods are logically organized, and Javadoc comments clearly explain intent. Nesting is minimal; the core logic in selectMethods uses one lambda with a single conditional containing a complex boolean expression, which slightly impacts clarity. Naming is descriptive. Length is appropriate for the complexity. Action granularity is mostly one operation per line, though the multi-line boolean condition in the lambda and the chained selectMethods/methodFilter conversion are slightly dense. Reading flow is natural due to clear method separation and comments. Minor deductions for the complex bridge-method condition and the somewhat obscure selectMethods lambda.

Run 1

1. Code Structure: Well-organized utility class with focused methods, a reusable overload, and a clearly defined callback interface. 2. Nesting: Mostly manageable, though the loop/lambda/conditional combination and nested exception handling require extra attention. 3. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough Javadoc explain metadata selection and proxy handling; the compound bridge-method condition is less immediately understandable. 4. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise for its functionality, although documentation and the lengthy exception message increase visual length. 5. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action; the filter overload combines adaptation, delegation, and result extraction in one expression. 6. Reading flow: Consistent formatting, early returns, and sequential fallback logic support natural reading. Specialized reflection utilities, a terse 'ifc' variable, and subtle bridge-method comparisons slightly interrupt the flow.

Run 2

Code Structure: Logically organized utility class with distinct method-selection operations and a clearly defined callback interface. Nesting: Mostly moderate, but the loop/lambda/nested conditionals in metadata selection and nested try blocks in invocable-method lookup increase cognitive load. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough Javadoc explain the API well; bridge-method identity/equality checks and proxy handling require specialized knowledge and could benefit from explanatory comments. Code length: Generally concise for its responsibilities, with some verbose documentation and exception text that provide useful context. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action each, although the filter overload combines callback adaptation, method selection, and key-set extraction in one expression. Reading flow: Natural progression from setup through traversal to results, with consistent formatting and helpful early returns; the long compound bridge-method condition slightly interrupts the flow.

Run 3

Code Structure: Well-organized utility class with focused methods, a reusable overload, and a clearly separated callback interface. Nesting: Mostly moderate, but the loop/lambda/conditional combination in metadata selection and nested try blocks in invocable-method lookup increase cognitive load. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough Javadoc explain the purpose well; the compound bridge-method condition requires specialized knowledge and could use an explanatory comment. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise for its reflection and proxy-handling responsibilities, although documentation occupies substantial space. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action; the filter overload combines casting, a lambda, delegation, and key extraction in one expression. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and logical progression from type discovery to inspection and result collection make the code easy to follow overall. Dense conditions and exception-driven interface searching slightly interrupt that flow.