Sample
int-72cefeebc88b-I05
Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 1 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Scalabrino | 0.899 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.728 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.399 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 1 | 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 | 0.747 | 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. | 51 | +20.4 |
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 382.574 | −12.625 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.905 | −7.358 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = 9.288 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(9.288) = 1.
| Score | 0.899 |
|---|
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. | 52 | −0.805 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.015 | +0.793 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 95.962 | +0.744 |
| 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. | 95.981 | −0.4 |
| 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. | 50.845 | +0.301 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 18 | −0.115 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = 0.986 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(0.986) = 0.728.
| Score | 0.399 |
|---|
| Score | 1 |
|---|
Run 1
This code demonstrates excellent readability. The interface is well-structured with clear separation between documentation, constants, and the method signature. Javadoc comments are thorough and explain the purpose, parameters, and exceptions in detail. The method signature is concise yet descriptive, with clear parameter names (ps, paramIndex, sqlType, typeName) and proper use of @Nullable annotation. Nesting is minimal since this is a single interface declaration. The code follows Spring Framework conventions, making it familiar to experienced Java developers. While the Javadoc is comprehensive, it's not excessive for a public API. The single constant TYPE_UNKNOWN is well-documented. The code achieves strong clarity of intent - it clearly defines a callback interface for setting complex SQL type values. Overall, this is exemplary Java API code that balances thorough documentation with clean implementation.
Run 2
The code is highly readable. It has a clear structure with a single interface declaration, well-organized imports, and comprehensive Javadoc that explains purpose, parameters, and exceptions. Nesting is non-existent as this is an interface with one method. Intent is unambiguous: defining an extended callback for setting SQL type values. Length is appropriate for a foundational Spring interface, with documentation serving an educational purpose rather than bloat. Action granularity is excellent—constant declaration and method signature are distinct and clean. Reading flow is natural: package, imports, type summary, constant, then method contract. Minor deductions could be made for the slight verbosity of some Javadoc sections, but overall this is exemplary readable API code.
Run 3
This code is highly readable due to its clear structure, minimal nesting, and comprehensive documentation. The package and import statements are logically organized at the top, followed by a well-written interface with detailed Javadocs explaining its purpose and usage. The interface contains only one constant and one method, making the intent unambiguous. The method signature is concise and uses descriptive parameter names (ps, paramIndex, sqlType, typeName) that clarify each argument's role. The @Nullable annotation on typeName indicates optionality without extra code. Line breaks in the method signature maintain readability without unnecessary verbosity. No nested blocks or complex logic exist, so action granularity is inherently one-per-line. The reading flow follows a natural top-down progression: package, imports, interface documentation, constant, method. Overall, this exemplifies clean, maintainable Java interface design, losing minimal points only for minor verbosity in documentation formatting and the slightly abbreviated 'ps' parameter name.
Run 1
Code Structure: A logically organized interface with imports, documentation, a constant, and a single method declaration. Nesting: Minimal nesting, with no control flow or implementation complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive interface and method names, detailed Javadoc, and an explicit nullable parameter clearly communicate the callback contract. Code length: The executable API is concise; documentation is useful but slightly repetitive. Action granularity: Each declaration has a distinct purpose, with no combined operations. Reading flow: The progression from interface overview to constant and method contract is natural. Minor drawbacks include the abbreviated parameter name 'ps', extra blank spacing, and some verbose documentation.
Run 2
Code Structure: A logically organized interface with imports, documentation, a constant, and a single method declaration. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed Javadoc clearly explain the callback contract, parameters, nullability, and exception behavior; 'ps' is slightly abbreviated. Code length: The implementation is minimal, although documentation contains minor repetition. Action granularity: Each declaration has a distinct responsibility, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression from interface purpose to constant and method contract; extra blank lines and the wrapped throws clause introduce only minor visual interruptions.
Run 3
Code Structure: The interface is logically organized, with imports, interface documentation, a constant, and a callback declaration. Nesting: Flat structure with no nested logic. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed Javadoc clearly explain the database-specific parameter-setting contract; @Nullable explicitly identifies the optional argument. Code length: The implementation is minimal, although documentation contains some repetitive phrasing. Action granularity: Each declaration serves a single purpose, with no combined operations. Reading flow: The constant precedes the method naturally, and parameter documentation follows the signature order. Minor readability drawbacks include the abbreviated parameter name 'ps', redundant wording in comments, and slightly excessive blank spacing.