Sample

int-b067689e1fcc-I09

Select one of ten low-readability unrelated code templates per class

Matched original source

Lines51

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett10–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.8990–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.7280–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.3990–1; higher is more readable
LLOC1Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro18.330–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol190–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.7470–1; higher is more readable

Views

Source code

package org.springframework.jdbc.core; import java.sql.PreparedStatement; import java.sql.SQLException; import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable; import org.springframework.jdbc.support.JdbcUtils; /** * Interface to be implemented for setting values for more complex database-specific * types not supported by the standard {@code setObject} method. This is * effectively an extended variant of {@link org.springframework.jdbc.support.SqlValue}. * * <p>Implementations perform the actual work of setting the actual values. They must * implement the callback method {@code setTypeValue} which can throw SQLExceptions * that will be caught and translated by the calling code. This callback method has * access to the underlying Connection via the given PreparedStatement object, if that * should be needed to create any database-specific objects. * * @author Thomas Risberg * @author Juergen Hoeller * @since 1.1 * @see java.sql.Types * @see java.sql.PreparedStatement#setObject * @see JdbcOperations#update(String, Object[], int[]) * @see org.springframework.jdbc.support.SqlValue */ public interface SqlTypeValue { /** * Constant that indicates an unknown (or unspecified) SQL type. * Passed into {@code setTypeValue} if the original operation method * does not specify an SQL type. * @see java.sql.Types * @see JdbcOperations#update(String, Object[]) */ int TYPE_UNKNOWN = JdbcUtils.TYPE_UNKNOWN; /** * Set the type value on the given PreparedStatement. * @param ps the PreparedStatement to work on * @param paramIndex the index of the parameter for which we need to set the value * @param sqlType the SQL type of the parameter we are setting * @param typeName the type name of the parameter (optional) * @throws SQLException if an SQLException is encountered while setting parameter values * @see java.sql.Types * @see java.sql.PreparedStatement#setObject */ void setTypeValue(PreparedStatement ps, int paramIndex, int sqlType, @Nullable String typeName) throws SQLException; }

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

Feature contributions

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(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.

Score0.899

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(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.

Score0.399
Score1
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. The interface is logically structured with a clear Javadoc explaining its purpose, usage, and contract. Nesting is nonexistent (flat interface structure). Intent is unambiguous — both the class-level documentation and method signature convey the responsibility of setting database-specific values. Code length is concise; there is no unnecessary code. Action granularity is appropriate: the constant declaration and method signature are cleanly separated. Reading flow is natural, from package declaration to imports, documentation, constant, and method. Minor deductions: a slightly long Javadoc could be trimmed, but it improves clarity rather than hurting readability.

Run 3

The code is highly readable. It is a well-structured Java interface with a clear single responsibility. Nesting is non-existent, as expected for an interface. The intent is explicit: defining a callback for setting database-specific values. Code length is concise and appropriate, providing necessary documentation without redundancy. Action granularity is clean, with each declaration and annotation on its own line where applicable. Reading flow is natural, beginning with imports, followed by Javadocs, constant declaration, and method signature. Minor deductions: the Javadoc is somewhat verbose, and the use of @Nullable annotation is clear but could be referenced in the method docs. Overall, it follows Spring framework conventions and is easy to understand for a developer familiar with JDBC.

Run 1

Code Structure: Cleanly organized into imports, interface documentation, a constant, and a single callback declaration. Nesting: Minimal, with no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive Javadoc explain the interface's purpose, parameters, nullability, and exception behavior; 'ps' is slightly abbreviated. Code length: The implementation is concise, although some documentation is repetitive. Action granularity: Each declaration has a distinct purpose, with no combined actions. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression and consistent formatting make the code easy to scan; minor excess blank space and tightly grouped package/import lines slightly reduce polish.

Run 2

Code Structure: Logically organized into package, imports, interface documentation, constant, and method declaration. Nesting: Flat, with only the interface scope and no nested control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and comprehensive Javadoc clearly explain the database-specific parameter-setting contract; nullability is explicit. Code length: The implementation is concise, though documentation contains minor repetition and extra blank lines. Action granularity: Each declaration serves one purpose, and the wrapped method signature remains easy to follow. Reading flow: Conventional Java ordering and documentation placement provide a natural progression. Minor drawbacks are the abbreviated parameter name 'ps' and slightly verbose introductory documentation.

Run 3

Code Structure: Clearly organized into package, imports, interface documentation, constant, and callback declaration. Nesting: Flat, with no nested control flow or complex blocks. Clarity of intent: Descriptive interface and method names, detailed Javadoc, and the nullable annotation make the contract explicit; 'ps' is slightly abbreviated but documented. Code length: The interface is concise, though some documentation is repetitive. Action granularity: Each declaration has a single responsibility, and the wrapped method signature remains easy to follow. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression with useful whitespace and documentation placed directly beside the relevant declarations.